Legal Opinion

Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Masterson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1932No. 23597PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Since the decision by this court of West, Recr., v. Gillette, Admr., 95 Ohio St., 305, 165 N. E., 521, some of our nisi prius courts have had difficulty in applying the “last clear chance” doctrine in the trial of personal injury cases. The records of this court disclose that the appellate courts have* less difficulty, and generally adhere to the rule that, where the plaintiff and defendant both are negligent, and the former’s negligence places him in a perilous situation from which he cannot escape, the plaintiff still may recover, even though he negligently placed himself in such situation,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wallis v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Oklahoma City Ry. Co. v. BarkettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  4. Campion v. EakleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926
  5. Miller v. Sioux Falls Traction SystemSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. RossOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Klever v. Reid Bros. Express, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Peters v. B. & F. Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Gibbs v. MikesellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1958
  5. Swetland Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1941

25 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