[An instruction as to the meaning of the word “proximately” intimates] “that there is a difference between the meaning of the word when applied to the defendant and when applied to the plaintiff. There is no such difference. Contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff must bear the same proximate relation to the result as the actionable negligence of the defendant. It need not be the sole cause, and it may contribute but slightly, but it must be a proximate cause in the same sense that the defendant’s negligence must be proximate.” Winslow, J., in Boyce v. Wilbur Lumber Co., 119 Wis. 642, 649–650.
[207]. The statement has been abridged and the arguments and part of the opinion are omitted.
[208]. Compare Rider v. Syracuse R. Co., 171 N. Y. 139.
[209]. The statement of facts and argument of counsel are omitted.
[210]. The statement of facts, arguments and parts of the opinions are omitted.
[211]. See also Bruggeman v. Illinois R. Co., 147 Ia. 187, 204–214; Anderson v. Minneapolis R. Co., 103 Minn. 224; Cavanaugh v. Boston R. Co., 76 N. H. 68; Scholl v. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 323; Underwood v. Old Colony R. Co., 33 R. I. 319. As to the requirement of a “new act of negligence” see Rider v. Syracuse R. Co., 171 N. Y. 139.
[212]. Statement abridged. Only part of opinion is given.
[213]. Statement omitted, also a large part of opinion.
[214]. 85 N. C. 310.
[215]. Statement abridged. Part of opinion omitted.