Dalley v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 74 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The last clear chance doctrine was not applicable until plaintiff arrived at such a point as to be in peril, and this was the point where he could no longer escape injury by exercising ordinary care. [Citing two cases.] In Cady v. Sanford, 57 Cal.App. 218, 224 [ 207 P. 45 ], it was said: “ ‘At some appreciable time prior to the crash plaintiff was in a position of peril. He was in a position of peril at the very instant that he arrived at that point where he no longer could avoid an accident by exercising ordinary care. Then, and not until then, was the last clear chance doctrine applicable.’ “It has been likewise held that the term ‘place of safety’ ordinarily includes the position of the plaintiff while he is merely approaching the place of danger, and so long as he is only approaching but is not actually in a position of danger, the plaintiff cannot invoke the doctrine. [Citing three cases.] While a person may be in danger or peril, i. e., while he may be simply exposed to injury, that is not enough to constitute a position of danger within the meaning of the last clear chance doctrine, and in order to comply with the requirements of this element of the doctrine, his position of danger must not only be an exposure to injury but it must be one from which he cannot extricate himself by exercising ordinary care. [Citing three eases.] The fact that a defendant actually sees the plaintiff some considerable time before the accident, or at a time when either or both of them are ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ferner v. Casalegno · 44 Cal. 2d 477 - Doran v. City & County of San Francisco

2. ““The doctrine of last clear chance may be invoked if, and only if, you find from the evidence that these six facts existed “First: That plaintiff, by his own negligence, got himself into a position of danger. “Second: That thereupon, either it was physically impossible for him through the exercise of ordinary care to escape from the danger, or he was totally unaware of impending danger in his position. “Third: That the defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s situation. “Fourth: That it appeared to the defendant, or would have appeared to him in the exercise of ordinary care, that plaintiff either was unaware of the danger impending in the situation or was unable to escape therefrom through the exercise of ordinary care. “Fifth: That after the defendant acquired actual knowledge of plaintiff’s perilous situation, he had a clear opportunity to avoid the accident and could have done so by exercising ordinary care. “Sixth: That the defendant did not avail himself of that opportunity, but by negligent conduct proximately caused the accident. “If all the conditions just mentioned are found by you to have existed with respect to the accident in question, then you must find against the defense of contributing negligence, because under such conditions the law holds the defendant liable for any injury suffered by the plaintiff and proximately resulting from the accident, despite the negligence of the plaintiff. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Cal. App. 2d 443 - Alberding v. Pritchard