 | William Taylor Hughes - Law - 1908 - 248 pages
...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.... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1909 - 1274 pages
...of the decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...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... | |
 | Railroad law - 1910 - 860 pages
...of the decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...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 - Law reports, digests, etc - 1910 - 760 pages
..."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... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1911 - 1278 pages
...proxlmately contributed to the Injury, it does not constitute contributory negligence which bars a recovery. The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...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 - Law reports, digests, etc - 1911 - 858 pages
...of the decision, though not clearly expressed by the court, has been accurately stated as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...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... | |
 | Ezekiel Henry Downey - History - 1912 - 364 pages
...Harvard Law Review, Vol. IlI, p. 263 ; also Salmond on Torts, Second Edition, 1910, p. 36. "26 ' ' Tne party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it. ... The rule constitutes no exception to the general doctrine of contributory... | |
 | Indiana. Appellate Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1913 - 836 pages
...clear chance." This doctrine is clearly stated by a writer in 2 Law Quarterly Review p. 507 as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." This doctrine has been frequently recognized and applied by our courts. Grass v. Fort Wayne, etc.,... | |
 | Indiana. Appellate Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1914 - 870 pages
...both of these questions would constitute a prima facie case of contributory negligence." The party who has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. This language is forceful and is peculiarly applicable to the facts in this case. This same doctrine... | |
 | Electronic journals - 1915 - 544 pages
...based on the last clear chance doctrine. The words of the lower court were: "The party who has the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident notwithstanding...opponent is considered solely responsible for it." The statement has the advantage of being short, but brevity in this instance is destructive to a fair... | |
| |
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. 
