Ingram v. McCorkle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Our courts have held that a motorist has the last clear chance to avoid an accident and is therefore liable, despite the gross and continuing negligence of a pedestrian, where the motorist could have, in time reasonably to have avoided the accident, perceived a pedestrian in the process of crossing the roadway with the obvious intention of proceeding into the motorist's path while unaware of the motorist's approach. Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La. 947 , 165 So. 153 ; Zachery v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 116 So.2d 847 ; Guillory v. Lemoine, La.App. 2 Cir., 87 So.2d 798 . `Under the last clear chance doctrine as enunciated by Louisiana jurisprudence, a motorist who observes or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed another in a position of peril may be held responsible for injuries caused by an ensuing collision with the other despite any contributory negligence on the part of the latter if, after the duty to make such observation arose, the motorist could reasonably have avoided the accident. [Citations omitted]', Belshe v. Gant, 235 La. 17 , 102 So.2d 477, 479 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 So. 2d 800 - Keenan v. Wactor

2. “" In the present instance, the defendants' driver had a clear field of vision of at least 125 feet during which he could and should have observed the pedestrian crossing the 21-foot wide Hooper Road at a fast walk or semi-run, obviously oblivious to the oncoming motor vehicle, despite which the motorist did not see Linda Fay until about 18 feet distant. The defendants' automobile did not strike Linda Fay until she had crossed 19 feet of the roadway and was just two feet short of completing her crossing, and it was thereafter brought to a stop within 66 feet after the impact. This indicates that by an earlier observation the defendants' driver could reasonably have stopped or slowed his vehicle so as to permit the pedestrian to complete her crossing in safety. We think, therefore, that the trial court properly held that the defendants' driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and accordingly held the defendants liable for Linda Fay's injuries." (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 197 So. 2d 107 - Tate v. Hill