• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Rew v. Dorn: A Novel Use of the Last-Clear-Chance Doctrine

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Rew_v_Dorn.pdf
    Size:
    614.3Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    James, Fleming
    Keyword
    Rew v. Dorn: A Novel Use of the Last-Clear-Chance Doctrine
    19 Ore. L. Rev. 178 (1940)
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2582
    Abstract
    The last-clear-chance doctrine has brought forth more than its share of strange progeny but none is stranger than a decision handed down about a year ago by the Oregon Supreme Court. The facts are commonplace enough. Plaintiff was injured when two automobiles collided at a street intersection. She was riding in one of them driven by her husband. To a complaint charging various acts of negligence, defendant answered setting up contributory negligence and, as an affirmative defense, he said that he skidded on the icy street and lost control of his care just before entering the intersection, and that both plaintiff and her husband saw his predicament in time to have saved him, but negligently failed to do so. At the trial evidence was introduced which supported each allegation of the affirmative defense. Plaintiff and her husband denied seeing defendant in time to avoid him. But on the whole evidence the jury might properly have either (1) rejected the truth of this denial, or (2) accepted the denial yet found that plaintiff and her husband should, in exercise of due care, have seen defendant's plight in time to prevent the collision. The court instructed that either of these findings would bar recovery, and the jury brought in a defendant's verdict. The trial court set the verdict aside for misdirection of the jury, and the Supreme Court upheld this action. In doing so, it found the instruction erroneous because, under Oregon decisions, the defendant should have been accorded the last clear chance only if the jury found plaintiff (and her husband) actually saw him in time to keep from hitting him. Had this reasoning been used with reference to a claim for damages by the defendant under a counterclaim, that would have been logical and understandable. But there appears to have been no counterclaim and the only issue was whether plaintiff could maintain her action. In that state of the case, the rule announced is so shockingly out of harmony with current American rationalizations of contributory negligence and last clear chance that it invites analysis.
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.