Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 Va. 227 - Stuart v. Coates

Stuart v. Coates’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 1955
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Barnes v. Ashworth · Harris Motor Lines, Inc. v. Green · Yellow Cab Corp. v. Henderson · National Fruit Product Co. v. Wagner · South Hill Motor Co. v. Gordon

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The doctrine is not to be allowed to wipe out or supersede the defense of contributory negligence. * * * “It is a rule that must be applied with caution, and its application is not to be extended to become in fact a rule of comparative negligence. * * * “The plaintiff is not entitled to recover under this doctrine on mere preadventure. The burden is on him to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in a situation of peril, of which he was unconscious or from which he could not by the exercise of reasonable care extricate himself, and that after his peril was discovered, or ought to have been discovered, the defendant had a last clear chance to save him by the exercise of ordinary care. * * * :“The obligation of observing the last clear ■ chance is . mutual. If the plaintiff had an equal chance with the defendant to avoid the accident, or the last clear chance to do so, the plaintiff cannot recover. * * * “Whether the doctrine applies is to be determined by the facts of the particular case. The defendant’s chance must be the last chance and a clear chance; and if the negligence of the defendant is not the sole proximate cause pf the accident, but the negligence of the plaintiff continues and is also a proximate cause, as distinguished from a remote cause, the defendant is not liable. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Defendant’s argument is that this language forbids the pedestrian to walk on the edge of the hard surface, and required him to walk on the edge of ‘the natural boundary of the highway' or the usable portion of such highway as generally accepted by the public.’ We do not agree with this view. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.