...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 the accident,...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...

...ahead wantonly or recklessly and commits the injury. It is now the well settled law that ' the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible.' i Shear. & R. Neg., § 99, and cases cited. See, also, Beach, Contrib. Neg. p. 58, § 18 ; i Redf....

...found in the work of Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, Volume 1, section 99. It is that "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." This is entirely consistent with our doctrine, as the negligence of the party injured in such a case...

...of Vizacchero v. Rhode Island Co., 26 RI, 392 [59 Atl. 105; 69 LRA 188]— it is said: ' ' The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible." In Grand Trunk Ry. v. Ives, 144 US, 408 [36 L. Ed. 485], the rule is thus formulated : "Although the...

...from Danes v. Mann, as is said by discriminating law writers, is that " the party who has the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...opponent, is considered solely responsible for It. 1 Shearm. A Redf. Neg. p. 165. This rule has now been adopted in almost all'of the southern and western-,...

...right to presume railroad company will not be negligent See Railroads, 53. 26. The party who last had a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, Is considered solelv responsible for the Injury. (Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 541.) 4. Who to Dec Ule...

...later negligence, is the sole proximate cause. As has been said by one of our law reviews: 'The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible.' " U[xm this question plaintiff contends that the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence 'ч that...

...Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 545, as is said by discriminating law-writers, is that "the party who has the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it": 2 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, 165. This rule has now been adopted in almost all of the southern...

...proximate cause. As has been said by one of the text writers on this subject: "The party who has a last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible." l The rule may also be upheld on another ground: A failure to exercise ordinary care by a defendant...

...Sbearm. >fc Redf. Neg. §481. Both parties being negligent, the true rule is held to be that "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." 1 Shearm. & Redf. Neg. g 99. It is also well settled that a plaintiff may recover damages for an injury...