Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1957–1974 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brandelius v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences1974“The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossble for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that plaintiff was unable to escape therefrom; and (3) that thereafter defendant had 1974“The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossble for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that plaintiff was unable to escape therefrom; and (3) that thereafter defendant had | 6 | 13 |
Doran v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences1970In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 47 Cal.2d 729 , the court, at page 743 of its opinion, stated the requirements for invoking the doctrine of last clear chance: “The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintif 1970In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 47 Cal.2d 729 , the court, at page 743 of its opinion, stated the requirements for invoking the doctrine of last clear chance: “The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintif | 3 | 4 |
Hildebrand v. Los Angeles Junction Railway Co.green2 sentences1964Co., 53 Cal.2d 826, 830 [ 350 P.2d 65 ].) In Brandelius the “time element” is stressed as being vital to the application of the doctrine. 1964Co., 53 Cal.2d 826, 830 [ 350 P.2d 65 ].) In Brandelius the “time element” is stressed as being vital to the application of the doctrine. | 3 | 3 |
Garibaldi v. Borchers Bros.green2 sentences1960(Garibaldi v. Borchers Bros. (1957), 48 Cal.2d 283, 290 [ 309 P.2d 23 ].) “The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the *608 facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, t 1960(Garibaldi v. Borchers Bros. (1957), 48 Cal.2d 283, 290 [ 309 P.2d 23 ].) “The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the *608 facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that defendant knew that plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, t | 1 | 1 |
Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Linesgreen2 sentences1960(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953), 40 Cal.2d 630, 640 [ 255 P.2d 795 ].) On appeal, in determining whether an instruction on the doctrine should have been given, the evidence is viewed most favorably to the contention that the doctrine is applicable. 1960(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953), 40 Cal.2d 630, 640 [ 255 P.2d 795 ].) On appeal, in determining whether an instruction on the doctrine should have been given, the evidence is viewed most favorably to the contention that the doctrine is applicable. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the 1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the | 1 | 1 |
Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co.green2 sentences1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the 1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the | 1 | 1 |
Vaccarezza v. Sanguinettigreen2 sentences1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the 1960(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Jackson v. Burke, supra, pp. 521-522 ; Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti, 71 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 163 P.2d 470 ].)” (Tidlund v. Seven Up Bottling Co., 154 Cal.App.2d 663, 665-666 [ 316 P.2d 656 ].) In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the court stated the formula for a last clear chance instruction as follows at page 743: “The formula may be restated as follows: The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the | 1 | 1 |
Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co.green2 sentences1958In respect to the doctrine itself, the court in Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co., 49 Cal.2d 483, 486-487 [ 319 P.2d 343 ] (Dec. 17, 1957) stated: “In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729, 743 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the last clear chance formula was restated as follows: ‘The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossibl 1958In respect to the doctrine itself, the court in Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co., 49 Cal.2d 483, 486-487 [ 319 P.2d 343 ] (Dec. 17, 1957) stated: “In Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729, 743 [ 306 P.2d 432 ], the last clear chance formula was restated as follows: ‘The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossibl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1957It is permissible to use the doctrine only after we first find, and you may not use it unless and until you first shall have found, that in the events leading up to the accident in question, both the deceased and defendants were negligent." "The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, you find from the evidence that these six facts existed:" "First: That deceased, by his own negligence, got himself into a position of danger." "Second: That thereupon, either it was physically impossible for him, through the exercise of ordinary care, to escape from the danger, or he was to 1957It is permissible to use the doctrine only after we first find, and you may not use it unless and until you first shall have found, that in the events leading up to the accident in question, both the deceased and defendants were negligent." "The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, you find from the evidence that these six facts existed:" "First: That deceased, by his own negligence, got himself into a position of danger." "Second: That thereupon, either it was physically impossible for him, through the exercise of ordinary care, to escape from the danger, or he was to | 2 | 1957–1960 |
Bonebrake v. McCormick
green
2 sentences1960(Selinsky v. Olsen, 38 Cal.2d 102 [ 237 P.2d 654 ]; Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 [ 215 P.2d 728 ].) The appellants also argue that where a trial court refuses to give instructions on the doctrine, the same situation is presented as when a nonsuit, directed verdict, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, relying on a concurrence by Justice Carter, an advocate of expanding last clear chance, and consistent dissenter where the doctrine was not invoked, in Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]. 1960(Selinsky v. Olsen, 38 Cal.2d 102 [ 237 P.2d 654 ]; Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 [ 215 P.2d 728 ].) The appellants also argue that where a trial court refuses to give instructions on the doctrine, the same situation is presented as when a nonsuit, directed verdict, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, relying on a concurrence by Justice Carter, an advocate of expanding last clear chance, and consistent dissenter where the doctrine was not invoked, in Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Selinsky v. Olsen
green
2 sentences1960(Selinsky v. Olsen, 38 Cal.2d 102 [ 237 P.2d 654 ]; Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 [ 215 P.2d 728 ].) The appellants also argue that where a trial court refuses to give instructions on the doctrine, the same situation is presented as when a nonsuit, directed verdict, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, relying on a concurrence by Justice Carter, an advocate of expanding last clear chance, and consistent dissenter where the doctrine was not invoked, in Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]. 1960(Selinsky v. Olsen, 38 Cal.2d 102 [ 237 P.2d 654 ]; Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 [ 215 P.2d 728 ].) The appellants also argue that where a trial court refuses to give instructions on the doctrine, the same situation is presented as when a nonsuit, directed verdict, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, relying on a concurrence by Justice Carter, an advocate of expanding last clear chance, and consistent dissenter where the doctrine was not invoked, in Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Sparks v. Redinger
green
2 sentences1958(Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.2d 477, 483 [ 283 P.2d 1 ].) The latest authoritative statement is found in Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729, 743 [ 306 P.2d 432 ] : “The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that de 1958(Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.2d 477, 483 [ 283 P.2d 1 ].) [9] The latest authoritative statement is found in Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729, 743 [ 306 P.2d 432 ]: "The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, the trier of the facts finds from the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically impossible for him to escape or because he was totally unaware of the danger; (2) that | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Peterson v. Burkhalter
green
2 sentences1957It is permissible to use the doctrine only after we first find, and you may not use it unless and until you first shall have found, that in the events leading up to the accident in question, both the deceased and defendants were negligent." "The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, you find from the evidence that these six facts existed:" "First: That deceased, by his own negligence, got himself into a position of danger." "Second: That thereupon, either it was physically impossible for him, through the exercise of ordinary care, to escape from the danger, or he was to 1957It is permissible to use the doctrine only after we first find, and you may not use it unless and until you first shall have found, that in the events leading up to the accident in question, both the deceased and defendants were negligent." "The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, you find from the evidence that these six facts existed:" "First: That deceased, by his own negligence, got himself into a position of danger." "Second: That thereupon, either it was physically impossible for him, through the exercise of ordinary care, to escape from the danger, or he was to | 1 | 1957–1957 |