NEGLIGENCE - LAST CLEAR CHANCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POSSIBILITY AND THE PROBABILITY OF AVERTING THE ACCIDENT

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

The plaintiff and her companion, both unaware of the defendant's approaching automobile, negligently drove onto a highway along which the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed. When thirty to forty feet away from the plaintiff, the defendant sounded his horn, applied the brakes, and swerved his car, but was unsuccessful in avoiding the collision. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. Held, judgment for the defendant reversed since the jury might have found: that defendant should have realized plaintiff's danger when he was one hundred and twenty feet away from the plaintiff; that although less than two seconds elapsed between the time of possible realization and the collision, defendant had the last clear chance to avert the accident; and that the defendant failed to use his existing ability to avert injury to the plaintiff. Nielsen v. Richman, (S. D., 1941) 299 N. W. 74, certiorari denied, Richman v. Nielsen, 3n U.S. 705, 61 S. Ct. 172 (1941).

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, NEGLIGENCE - LAST CLEAR CHANCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POSSIBILITY AND THE PROBABILITY OF AVERTING THE ACCIDENT, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 608 (1942).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss4/17