Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em System

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 27, 1936No. 4-4097Published

1DissentJohnson, C. J.

The majority opinion indeed takes this court back to “horse and buggy days” in reference to the doctrine of “last clear chance” or “discovered peril.”

As I understand the English language, we expressly held in Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Tolliver, 181 Ark. 790, 27 S. W. (2d) 985, to the contrary of the doctrine now announced by the majority. We there said: “The specific vice of the instruction urged upon our attention is that the instruction told the jury that, if the motorman could have discovered appellee’s peril in time to have stopped his ear and avoided the injury to the appellee, had…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Dorough v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  3. Handley v. LombardiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Cleveland Ry. Co. v. MastersonOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Northern Texas Traction Co. v. SingerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

19 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