last clear chance doctrine in Nevada

1959Styris v. Folk, 62 Nev. 208, 209 , 139 P.2d 614 , 146 P.2d 782 ; Deiss v. So.

1958Even eliminating from consideration the truck driver’s version of the accident (that the Plymouth turned in front of him into his lane at a distance of 10 feet ahead of him and then came, to an abrupt stop) and eliminating from consideration the question as to whether the plaintiff could not have extricated herself from her danger simply by pulling ahead (she was on a main highway, with nothing to hinder her forward progress) during the period of time it took for the truck to travel 396.90 feet as contended by her, there was no reasonable or plausible basis *124 for the submission of a last cl

1958Even eliminating from consideration the truck driver’s version of the accident (that the Plymouth turned in front of him into his lane at a distance of 10 feet ahead of him and then came, to an abrupt stop) and eliminating from consideration the question as to whether the plaintiff could not have extricated herself from her danger simply by pulling ahead (she was on a main highway, with nothing to hinder her forward progress) during the period of time it took for the truck to travel 396.90 feet as contended by her, there was no reasonable or plausible basis *124 for the submission of a last cl

1958And in Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 , 215 P.2d 728 , where the principal question presented was whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance, the court said: “This depends on whether there was evidence which would reasonably support a recovery on that theory.” Under the evidence as above recited, we are satisfied that the court was not in error in refusing the requested instruction.

1958And in Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 , 215 P.2d 728 , where the principal question presented was whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance, the court said: “This depends on whether there was evidence which would reasonably support a recovery on that theory.” Under the evidence as above recited, we are satisfied that the court was not in error in refusing the requested instruction.

1954Deiss v. Southern Pacific Co., 56 Nev. 151 , 47 P.2d 928 , 53 P.2d 332 .

1954Deiss v. Southern Pacific Co., 56 Nev. 151 , 47 P.2d 928 , 53 P.2d 332 .

1943Girdner v. Union Oil Co., 216 Cal. 197 , 13 P. 2d 915 .” (The italics are ours.) To illustrate the rule adopted by the court in Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc., supra, is quoted at length from Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, as follows: “ ‘Whether or not, therefore, negligence is the proximate or remote cause is, as above stated, a question of fact in each particular case.

1943Girdner v. Union Oil Co., 216 Cal. 197 , 13 P. 2d 915 .” (The italics are ours.) To illustrate the rule adopted by the court in Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc., supra, is quoted at length from Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, as follows: “ ‘Whether or not, therefore, negligence is the proximate or remote cause is, as above stated, a question of fact in each particular case.

1915Co., 80 Conn. 268 , 67 Atl. 888 , 17 L.

1915Co., 80 Conn. 268 , 67 Atl. 888 , 17 L.