...the plaintiff can complain of. The idea is clearly expressed in 2 Law Rev. &Quar. J. 507: "The purty who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...or by which the accident happened; but no part of ita real and controlling canse. 0' Brien v. McGlinchy, 68 Me. 55'.', 557. Tho servant was hardly even...

...carriage going on the wrong side of the road." The doctrine of the above case has been stated to be that ''the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...his opponent, is considered solely responsible for it."4 Another legal writer5 in describing the rule as set out in the above case says, "It means only...

...being 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. '' Hall v. Hallway Co., 13 Utah, '24:3 ; Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co., 16 Utah, 281. BASKIN,...

...of Its decision have been accurately stated by a writer in 2 Quarterly Law Review, 507, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...opponent, is considered solely responsible for It" The Supreme Court of the United States in Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ivés, 144 US 408, 12 Sup. Ct. 679,...

...Ineffective. The doctrine does not apply here 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" If the jury believed, from the evidence, that appellee would not have been injured but for the negligence...

...rule, as formulated by a writer in the Quarterly Law Review, vol. 2, p. 507, is adopted as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible," 1 S. & R. Neg. 165, § 99. The negligence of the plaintiff's intestate did not consist in walking upon...

...thrust off, was stupid enough to go on. The result is that the party wlto last has a ckar ojyportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligence...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it ; and this will be found, we believe, to be true of all such cases, whether the series be long or short....

...principle here invoked has been tersely put in the following language:— "The party who has the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...opponent Is considered solely responsible for It" See Barrow, Neg. 53. It is contended by plaintiff that, on approaching the tracks, Barnhill did not...

...which the plaintiff can complain of. The idea is clearly expressed in 2 Law llev. A Quar. J. Г)07 : "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...responsible for it." In such case defendants are not even guillv of contributory negligence; that is, their ]ie <r li' r ence does not, in a le^al sense, contribute...

...principle is, we think, accurately expressed here ; or, as it has been well put by another writer : " The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...his opponent, is considered solely responsible for it."6 1 Card v. Harlem R. Co., 50 Barb. 39; Barrett v. Midland R. Co., I Foster & F. 361. To similar...