 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
 | Railroad law - 1911 - 608 pages
...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,... | |
 | William E. Nelson - Political Science - 1982 - 240 pages
...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... | |
 | G. Edward White - History - 2003 - 424 pages
...workable "rule" for cases where "there is negligence on both sides." His formulation was thus: "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. . . ." This rule "will be found ... to be true," Wills claimed, "of all such cases, whether the series... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1906 - 856 pages
...said to be a correct statement of the law in Holmes v. South Pac. C. Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 169. "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. Cited in Everett v. Los Angeles etc. Ry. Co., 115 Cal.... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1906 - 812 pages
...which will defeat a recovery. ID. — OPPORTUNITY OF AVOIDING ACCIDENT. — The party who last had a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...his opponent. Is considered solely responsible for the injury. ID. — WANTONNESS OF EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT — QUESTION OF FACT. — The question of... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1906 - 842 pages
...one of our reviews : 'The party who last has a Nov. 1896.] EVERETT v. Los ANGELES ETC. Ry. Co. 115 clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible.' " Upon this question plaintiff contends that the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence is, that... | |
| |
