Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stewart v. Capital Transit Co.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided April 3, 1939No. 7141Published

1DissentVinson, Associate Justice

The appellants requested an instruction upon the doctrine of the last clear chance as set out in their prayer No. 1. In the original opinion, we held that the refusal to grant this prayer was correct; that the prayer was defective “in that it does not require either that the peril of the plaintiff Lottie Stewart be inescapable, or that she be oblivious to it.”, .On rehearing the majority decide that, before the doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked, the peril must be inescapable or there be obliviousness to it. With this I cannot agree, nor do I think that the authorities cited by the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Chunn v. City & Suburban R. Co. of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  4. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. EllzeySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  5. Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API