limits doctrine in Indiana

1974In that case this court, at page 506 of 236 N.E.2d, in reviewing the holding of Stallings v. Dick, 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N.E.2d 82 (1965), said: ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself from his position of peril.’ “The limits of the doctrine are narrow, and this is as it should be.

1974In that case this court, at page 506 of 236 N.E.2d, in reviewing the holding of Stallings v. Dick, 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N.E.2d 82 (1965), said: ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself from his position of peril.’ “The limits of the doctrine are narrow, and this is as it should be.

1974It is intended to be limited to that special class of cases where, as was said in Indianapolis Traction, etc. Co. v. Croly, 54 Ind. App. 566, 587 , 96 N.E. 973 (1913), (Transfer denied), ‘. . . their chances are equal, but the motorman [defendant] actually possesses the knowledge of the danger and appreciates the necessity of taking steps to avoid the injury, while the person injured has no actual knowledge of his danger, and does not appreciate the necessity of taking steps to avoid it.’ “This limited scope may be, again, summarized prospectively as follows: 1) The defendant had actual knowle

1974It is intended to be limited to that special class of cases where, as was said in Indianapolis Traction, etc. Co. v. Croly, 54 Ind. App. 566, 587 , 96 N.E. 973 (1913), (Transfer denied), ‘. . . their chances are equal, but the motorman [defendant] actually possesses the knowledge of the danger and appreciates the necessity of taking steps to avoid the injury, while the person injured has no actual knowledge of his danger, and does not appreciate the necessity of taking steps to avoid it.’ “This limited scope may be, again, summarized prospectively as follows: 1) The defendant had actual knowle

1981In Samuels v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 676 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , Justice Prentice writing for our Supreme Court said: “It appears that the rule drawn from Patterson may well be in need of reconsideration.

1981In Samuels v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 676 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , Justice Prentice writing for our Supreme Court said: “It appears that the rule drawn from Patterson may well be in need of reconsideration.

1972In National City Lines v. Hurst (1969), 145 Ind. App. 278 , 250 N. E. 2d 507, 510 , 18 Ind. Dec. 420 , 423, (quoting Bayne v. Turner (1968), 142 Ind. App. 580 , 236 N. E. 2d 503, 506 ), we said: “ ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case [Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N. E. 2d 82 ], are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself

1972In National City Lines v. Hurst (1969), 145 Ind. App. 278 , 250 N. E. 2d 507, 510 , 18 Ind. Dec. 420 , 423, (quoting Bayne v. Turner (1968), 142 Ind. App. 580 , 236 N. E. 2d 503, 506 ), we said: “ ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case [Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N. E. 2d 82 ], are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself

1972In National City Lines v. Hurst (1969), 145 Ind. App. 278 , 250 N. E. 2d 507, 510 , 18 Ind. Dec. 420 , 423, (quoting Bayne v. Turner (1968), 142 Ind. App. 580 , 236 N. E. 2d 503, 506 ), we said: “ ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case [Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N. E. 2d 82 ], are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself

1972In National City Lines v. Hurst (1969), 145 Ind. App. 278 , 250 N. E. 2d 507, 510 , 18 Ind. Dec. 420 , 423, (quoting Bayne v. Turner (1968), 142 Ind. App. 580 , 236 N. E. 2d 503, 506 ), we said: “ ‘The essential elements of last clear chance, as stated in the Stallings case [Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind. App. 118 , 210 N. E. 2d 82 ], are as follows: (1) plaintiff must be in a position of peril; (2) defendant must have actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril; (3) defendant must have a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury; (4) plaintiff must, if possible, extricate himself

1901City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind. 562 ; Consolidated Stone Co. v. Summit, 152 Ind. 297.

1901City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind. 562 ; Consolidated Stone Co. v. Summit, 152 Ind. 297.

1901City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418 ; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind. 562 ; Consolidated Stone Co. v. Summit, 152 Ind. 297.