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.
10 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1914–1972 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
Niday v. Tomasinigreen2 sentences1967See Niday v. Tomasmi, 240 Or 589, 594 , 403 P2d 704 (1965), for the factual elements that will invoke the doctrine of last clear chance. 1967See Niday v. Tomasmi, 240 Or 589, 594 , 403 P2d 704 (1965), for the factual elements that will invoke the doctrine of last clear chance. | 2 | 2 |
Lindsey v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1972The last clear chance doctrine in Oregon is known as the doctrine of “discovered peril.” We have repeatedly held that “a defendant cannot be held to have the last clear chance unless he knows of plaintiff’s peril; it is not sufficient if only he should have known of plaintiff’s peril.” Lindsey v. Southern Pacific Co., supra ( 240 Or at 14 ). 1971See also, Lindsey v. Southern Pacific Co., 240 Or 11, 14 , 399 P2d 152 (1965).' In the pure classic example for the application of the last clear chance doctrine, the plaintiff admits his negligence or is found to be negligent and says that notwithstanding his negligence and because of his discovered peril, the defendant has the last clear chance to avert the accident. | 1 | 2 |
Marshall v. Olsongreen2 sentences1967See, also, holding that facts within the last-clear-chance doctrine must be pleaded as well as proven, Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or 502, 511 , 202 P 736 (1922); Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or 377, 381 , 114 P 936 (1911). 1967See, also, holding that facts within the last-clear-chance doctrine must be pleaded as well as proven, Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or 502, 511 , 202 P 736 (1922); Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or 377, 381 , 114 P 936 (1911). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.
green
2 sentences1972At this point a neAv condition supervenes, in which all previous negligence of both parties is laid out of the account, and a new duty, dating only from that moment, arises on the part of the defendant, who is required then, and not until then, under the last clear chance doctrine, to use all of the means he has at hand to avert the injury. * * 97 Or at 285 . ① It would be patently illogical to hold that one element of actual knowledge of peril must be known, the physical presence of the plaintiff, but constructive knowledge would suffice for the other element, knowledge that the plaintiff no 1965Mr. Justice BURNETT, speaking for the court, opens the opinion with this statement, 97 Or 263 , 271: "Apparently there was an attempt in the complaint to state a cause of action for negligence of the defendants, and another count for injury inflicted in violation of what is known as the last clear chance doctrine. | 4 | 1956–1972 |
Stewart v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co.
green
2 sentences1967See, also, holding that facts within the last-clear-chance doctrine must be pleaded as well as proven, Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or 502, 511 , 202 P 736 (1922); Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or 377, 381 , 114 P 936 (1911). 1967See, also, holding that facts within the last-clear-chance doctrine must be pleaded as well as proven, Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or 502, 511 , 202 P 736 (1922); Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or 377, 381 , 114 P 936 (1911). | 4 | 1914–1967 |
Falls v. Mortensen
green
2 sentences1965Falls v. Mortensen, 207 Or 130, 141 , 295 P2d 182 ; Morser v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 110 Or 9 , 222 P 736 ; Emmons v. Southern Pac. 1965Falls v. Mortensen, 207 Or 130, 141 , 295 P2d 182 ; Morser v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 110 Or 9 , 222 P 736 ; Emmons v. Southern Pac. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Palmer v. MURDOCK
green
2 sentences1965The trial judge apparently disposed of the case upon the basis of a statement in the concurring opinion of LUSK, J., in Palmer v. Murdock, 233 Or 334, 344 , 378 P2d 271 (1963), where it was said, "I have grave doubt whether the last clear chance doctrine can ever be applied to a case involving a collision between two automobiles in an intersection of streets under circumstances similar to those described in the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff." The concurring opinion then quoted from 61 CJS 123, Motor Vehicles § 493 to the effect that generally the last clear chance doctrine is 1965The trial judge apparently disposed of the case upon the basis of a statement in the concurring opinion of LUSK, J., in Palmer v. Murdock, 233 Or 334, 344 , 378 P2d 271 (1963), where it was said, "I have grave doubt whether the last clear chance doctrine can ever be applied to a case involving a collision between two automobiles in an intersection of streets under circumstances similar to those described in the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff." The concurring opinion then quoted from 61 CJS 123, Motor Vehicles § 493 to the effect that generally the last clear chance doctrine is | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Morser v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1965Falls v. Mortensen, 207 Or 130, 141 , 295 P2d 182 ; Morser v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 110 Or 9 , 222 P 736 ; Emmons v. Southern Pac. 1965Falls v. Mortensen, 207 Or 130, 141 , 295 P2d 182 ; Morser v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 110 Or 9 , 222 P 736 ; Emmons v. Southern Pac. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Smith v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . 1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Deere v. Southern Pacific Co.
neutral
1 sentence1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Landis v. Wick
green
2 sentences1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . 1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Rew v. Dorn
neutral
2 sentences1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . 1956Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263 , 191 P 333 ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Or 22 , 113 P 41 ; Landis v. Wick, 154 Or 199 , 57 P2d 759 , 59 P2d 403 ; Rew v. Dorn, 160 Or 368 , 85 P2d 1031 ; Deere v. Southern Pacific Co., 123 F2d 438, 86 Led 1217, certiorari denied, 315 US 819 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Garcés v. Registrar of Property of San Germán
green
1 sentence1914In order to invoke the last clear chance doctrine, the plaintiff must plead and prove that defendant, after perceiving the danger and in time to have avoided it, negligently failed to do so: Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or. 377 ( 114 Pac. 936 ); Cederson v. Navigation Co., 38 Or. 359 ( 62 Pac. 637 , 63 Pac. 763 ). | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Cederson v. Oregon Navigation Co.
green
1 sentence1914In order to invoke the last clear chance doctrine, the plaintiff must plead and prove that defendant, after perceiving the danger and in time to have avoided it, negligently failed to do so: Stewart v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 58 Or. 377 ( 114 Pac. 936 ); Cederson v. Navigation Co., 38 Or. 359 ( 62 Pac. 637 , 63 Pac. 763 ). | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.