...workable "rule" for cases where "there is negligence on both sides." His formulation was thus: "the party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...opponent, is considered solely responsible for it. . . ." This rule "will be found ... to be true," Wills claimed, "of all such cases, whether the series...

...said to be a correct statement of the law in Holmes v. South Pac. C. Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 169. "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible": Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 545. Cited in Everett v. Los Angeles etc. Ry. Co., 115 Cal....

...which will defeat a recovery. ID. — OPPORTUNITY OF AVOIDING ACCIDENT. — The party who last had a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...his opponent. Is considered solely responsible for the injury. ID. — WANTONNESS OF EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT — QUESTION OF FACT. — The question of...

...one of our reviews : 'The party who last has a Nov. 1896.] EVERETT v. Los ANGELES ETC. Ry. Co. 115 clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible.' " Upon this question plaintiff contends that the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence is, that...

...to avoid injuring such person. For a failure so to do such person is liable in damages. "The party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...of his opponent, is considered solely responsible." (Esrcy v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 541.) in the case at bar there is evidence which tends to...

...statement of .the rule in such cases is fcrand in 1 Shearman & Redfield Negligence, section 99: "That party who last has a clear opportunity of avoiding the accident,...notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is solely responsible for it." In this connection, appellant contends that under the following instruction...