...had he exercised proper care after discovering the danger, or, as it has been tersely put, "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent is considered solely responsible for it." 211 The negligent conduct of the plaintiff is not then a cause, but a condition.21* Thus plaintiff...

...137 NYS 273, 152 App. Div. 444. (NDliilO) The person who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered solely responsible for it.— Acton v. Fargo & M. St. Ry. Co., 129 NW 220, 20 N. D. 434. (Ohio, 1907) Where plaintiff has been negligent...

...plaintiff could still recover, and sums up the law In this general rule : " The result is, that the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it; and this will be found, we believe, to be true in all such cases, whether the series be long or short."...

...rule : " The result is, that the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the acc1 Jen/, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered solely responsible for it; and this will be found, we believe, to be true in all such cases, whether the series be long or short."...

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

...Horn, 52 NJL 284, 10 LRA 184. JETSAM AND FLOTSAM. THE LAST CHANCE DOCTRINE. "The party who has the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident notwithstanding...opponent is considered solely responsible for it." The last chance doctrine thus expressed waa adopted in a recent Louisiana case. Barnblll v. Texas &...

...he fails to do so." Lambert v. Southern Рас. R. Co.. 146 Cal. 231, 236, 79 P 873. (3) "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible." Esrey v. Southern Рас. Co., 103 Cal. 541, Б4Б, 37 P 500 [quot Rowe v. Southern California R. Co.,...

...to avoid injuring such person. For a failure so to do such person is liable in damages. "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. 541, [37 Pac. 500].) In the case at bar there is evidence...

...plaintiff .in getting close to the tracks. As said by a writer in the Law Quarterly Review : ' ' The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered to be solely responsible for it" (vol. 2, p. 507 (1886) ) ; Halifax Electric Tramway Co. v. Inglis,...

...when an anonymous writer in the Law Quarterly Review formulated the Davies case as follows: "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." Gradually this reading of the Davies case was accepted by other writers and by the courts, and by 1900...