Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 29 > Issue 3 (1931)
Abstract
ln an action for damages by a negligent driver oi a motorcycle against a negligent driver of an automobile for injuries sustained in a collision between them, the instructions to the jury were that the plaintiff could recover, "if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence." Held, the instructions are erroneous in omitting the essential element of the last clear chance doctrine, that the plaintiff's peril must have been known to the defendant in time to have avoided the accident. Graybill v. Clancy (Okla. 1930) 291 Pac. 87.
Recommended Citation
NEGLIGENCE-"LAST CLEAR CHANCE" DOCTRINE,
29
Mich. L. Rev.
383
(1931).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss3/30