 The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered solely responsible for it" The United States supreme court in Grand Trunk Ry.  Albany Law Journal - Page 2771888Full view - About this book
 | 1907 - 1182 lehte
...stopped the train, was guilty of such negligence as to bring the case within the doctrine that "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible. Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 545, 37 Рас. 500. The doctrine In question, as above and... | |
 | 1908 - 554 lehte
...doctrine of that case, and the ground of its decision, have been accurately stated as follows:2 "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it." The North Carolina Supreme Court, whose treatment of the doctrine as applied... | |
 | William Taylor Hughes - 1908 - 248 lehte
...are negligent the true rule is held to be that the party who last has a clear opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. Thompson v. Salt Lake Co. ; Cincinnati RR v. Worthington (1903), 30 Ind. Ap. 603, 96 Am. St. 355, n.... | |
 | 1908 - 1350 lehte
..."Discovered peril" rests upon the principle that "the party who has the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." This relegates the antecedent negligence of either party to the position of the remote cause of the... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1909 - 1226 lehte
...been accurately stated by a writer in the Quarterly Law Review, volume 2, 507, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. ' ' The United States supreme court in Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Ives, 144 US 408, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 679,... | |
 | 1909 - 1274 lehte
...decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it." In Smith v. Railway, 114 NC "28, 19 SE 8G3, 923, 25 L. R, A. 287, the subject... | |
 | 1910 - 860 lehte
...decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it." In Smith v. Railway, 114 N. C. 728, 19 SE 863, 923, 25 LRA 287, the subject... | |
 | Texas. Court of Civil Appeals - 1910 - 760 lehte
..."Discovered peril" rests upon the principle that, "the party, who has the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." This relegates the antecedent negligence of either party to the position of the remote cause of the... | |
 | 1911 - 1278 lehte
...contributed to the Injury, it does not constitute contributory negligence which bars a recovery. The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, Is considered solely responsible for It A very full discussion of the doctrine of the last clear chance is found In note to case of Bogan v.... | |
 | Iowa. Supreme Court - 1911 - 858 lehte
...decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it." In Smith v. Railway, 114 NC 728 (19 SE 863, 923, 25 L. It. A. 287), the... | |
| |
