Casey v. Marshall
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
MORGAN, Judge.
In their motion for rehearing, defendants for the first time make the following claims: 1. Under the decision of this court in Santa Fe, P. & P. R. Co. v. Ford, 10 Ariz. 201, 85 P. 1072, we are committed to the rule of discovered peril in applying the last clear chance rule. 2. The instruction requested by plaintiff was insufficient in that it did not advise the jury that the driver of defendants’ car must have had the opportunity and the ability to have avoided the collision after he had discovered plaintiff’s peril.
In preparing the opiniqn here, we had considered the Santa Fe…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. HarringtonArizona Supreme Court · 1943
- Howard v. WorthingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Garlington v. McLaughlinArizona Supreme Court · 1940
- Santa Fe, Prescott & Phœnix Railway Co. v. FordArizona Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bryan v. Southern Pacific CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1955
- Egurrola v. SzychowskiArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Schneider v. MacAriArizona Supreme Court · 1975
- Choate v. MeredithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.