discovered peril doctrine in Arkansas

1955Railway Co. v. Simpson, 184 Ark. 633 , 43 S. W. 2d 251 , it is said: ‘ ‘ The discovered peril doctrine, or the doctrine of last clear chance, as it is sometimes called, constitutes an exception to the rule that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is a bar to his action.

1955Railway Co. v. Simpson, 184 Ark. 633 , 43 S. W. 2d 251 , it is said: ‘ ‘ The discovered peril doctrine, or the doctrine of last clear chance, as it is sometimes called, constitutes an exception to the rule that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is a bar to his action.

1953In a recent ease, Shearman Concrete Pipe Company v. Wooldridge, 218 Ark. 16 , 234 S. W. 2d 382 , we defined it in this language: “The so-called ‘discovered peril doctrine’ or ‘the last clear chance doctrine,’ which doctrine, most succinctly stated, is that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant when it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence after discovering the perilous condition of the plaintiff, could have avoided the injurious consequences to the plaintiff.” We have concluded that on the

1953In a recent ease, Shearman Concrete Pipe Company v. Wooldridge, 218 Ark. 16 , 234 S. W. 2d 382 , we defined it in this language: “The so-called ‘discovered peril doctrine’ or ‘the last clear chance doctrine,’ which doctrine, most succinctly stated, is that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant when it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence after discovering the perilous condition of the plaintiff, could have avoided the injurious consequences to the plaintiff.” We have concluded that on the

1955Under this doctrine, where one discovered the perilous- situation of another in time, by the exercise of ordinary care, to prevent injury to him, it is his duty to do so.” In Roland v. Terryland, Inc., 221 Ark. 837 , 256 S. W. 2d 315 , we quoted with approval from Shearman Concrete Pipe Co. v. Wooldridge, 218 Ark. 16 , 234 S. W. 2d 382 , “The so-called ‘discovered peril doctrine’ or the ‘last clear chance doctrine’, which doctrine, most succinctly stated, is that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant when it appears that t

1955Under this doctrine, where one discovered the perilous- situation of another in time, by the exercise of ordinary care, to prevent injury to him, it is his duty to do so.” In Roland v. Terryland, Inc., 221 Ark. 837 , 256 S. W. 2d 315 , we quoted with approval from Shearman Concrete Pipe Co. v. Wooldridge, 218 Ark. 16 , 234 S. W. 2d 382 , “The so-called ‘discovered peril doctrine’ or the ‘last clear chance doctrine’, which doctrine, most succinctly stated, is that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant when it appears that t

1955It is pointed out in Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em System, 192 Ark. 75 , 90 S. W. 2d 232 , that the Tolliver and Heyligers cases were not tried on the discovered peril doctrine but upon the rule of negligence and contributory negligence.

1955It is pointed out in Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em System, 192 Ark. 75 , 90 S. W. 2d 232 , that the Tolliver and Heyligers cases were not tried on the discovered peril doctrine but upon the rule of negligence and contributory negligence.

1953In Houck v. Marshall, 198 Ark. 938 , 132 S. W. 2d 181 , where facts similar in effect were present, in denying the application of the discovered peril doctrine, we said: “Under the facts in the instant case we are of the view that the discovered peril, or the last clear chance doctrine, does not apply ...

1953In Houck v. Marshall, 198 Ark. 938 , 132 S. W. 2d 181 , where facts similar in effect were present, in denying the application of the discovered peril doctrine, we said: “Under the facts in the instant case we are of the view that the discovered peril, or the last clear chance doctrine, does not apply ...

1936Power & Light Co. v. Tolliver, 181 Ark. 790 , 27 S. W. (2d) 985 , instruction No. 1A for appellee was criticized by appellant as being incorrect under the discovered peril rule.

1936Power & Light Co. v. Tolliver, 181 Ark. 790 , 27 S. W. (2d) 985 , instruction No. 1A for appellee was criticized by appellant as being incorrect under the discovered peril rule.

1931It is conceded by both parties that liability if any is governed by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and only one ground of negligence was submitted to the jury as shown by instruction No. 9, given at appellee’s request, to-wit: “The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff relies alone upon the doctrine of discovered peril for a recovery in this case, and you will not consider any other allegation of negligence.” It is contended, however, by able counsel for appellant that the doctrine of discovered peril or the “last clear chance doctrine” is not applicable to this case; that it is a

1931It is conceded by both parties that liability if any is governed by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and only one ground of negligence was submitted to the jury as shown by instruction No. 9, given at appellee’s request, to-wit: “The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff relies alone upon the doctrine of discovered peril for a recovery in this case, and you will not consider any other allegation of negligence.” It is contended, however, by able counsel for appellant that the doctrine of discovered peril or the “last clear chance doctrine” is not applicable to this case; that it is a