 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 - Halaman 2771888Tampilan utuh - Tentang buku ini
 | 1898 - 1164 halaman
...are negligent, the true rule is held to be tluit the party who last has a clear opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. 2. A plaintiff may recover damages for an injury caused by the defendant's negligence, notwithstanding... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1899 - 1064 halaman
...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": 1 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 99. It is also well settled that a plaintiff may recover... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1899 - 1054 halaman
...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": 1 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 99. It is also well settled that a plaintiff may recover... | |
 | 1902 - 1036 halaman
...8.408, 429, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 687, 36 L. Ed. 485. The elementary writers are equally emphatic. "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. It is now perfectly well settled that the plaintiff may recover damages for an injury caused by the... | |
 | 1902 - 540 halaman
...felicitously stated by a writer in the Quarterly Law Review (Vol. 2, p. 507) as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it." This quotation implies what is expressly stated by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Smith v. Norfolk... | |
 | Idaho. Supreme Court - 1908 - 922 halaman
...been accurately stated by a writer in the Quarterly Law Review, vol. 2, 507, as follows: "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it" The United States supreme court in Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Ives, 144 US 480, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 36 L.... | |
 | 1903 - 652 halaman
...to be preferred, it should be the former. 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 was adopted in a recent Louisiana case. Barnhill v. Texas &•... | |
 | Illinois. Appellate Court, Martin L. Newell, Mason Harder Newell, Walter Clyde Jones, Keene Harwood Addington, James Christopher Cahill, Basil Jones, James Max Henderson, Ray Smith - 1905 - 722 halaman
...injury. To hold, as contended by counsel, 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," would therefore, in most cases, nullify and render nugatory the well-established rule that contributory... | |
 | 1905 - 1008 halaman
...negligent, the true rule is held to be that "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoid ing the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his...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... | |
 | 1906 - 1058 halaman
...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.... | |
| |
