Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Negligence—Last Clear Chance—Emergency Rule, Gordon F. Crandall
Negligence—Last Clear Chance—Emergency Rule, Gordon F. Crandall
Washington Law Review
P was helping to push F's car out of a ditch and while standing beside the car he failed to see the approach of D's auto over the crest of a hill 250 feet behind him. D saw F's automobile partially blocking the road and tried to stop or avoid it, but his car went out of control, slid broadside down the slippery road and struck P, pinning him between the two cars as they collided. The trial court gave the jury an instruction on last clear chance, apparently for the reason that although D was unable to stop his …
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Application And Effect, Murray B. Guterson
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Application And Effect, Murray B. Guterson
Washington Law Review
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has played a significant role in eighteen cases' appealed to the Washington Supreme Court since 1938. Examination of these decisions will reveal that the doctrine of res ipsa is applied as circumstantial evidence at two stages of a negligence action, that its application is made in accordance with three court-made requisites as to the nature of the proof, and that it will be applied only in the event that the plaintiff in the trial court achieves the level of proof that is required for its application. It is the author's purpose to develop the …
Master And Servant—Liability Of Master For Injuries Inflicted By Incompetent Servant—Respondeat Superior And Original Negligence, Edward J. Mccormick Jr.
Master And Servant—Liability Of Master For Injuries Inflicted By Incompetent Servant—Respondeat Superior And Original Negligence, Edward J. Mccormick Jr.
Washington Law Review
The owner of an apartment house employed a manager who, in the exercise of his duties, employed a janitor. Thereafter, the janitor became drunk and assaulted a tenant. The trial court expressly found that this fact was communicated to the manager who nevertheless continued to employ the janitor. There was no express finding that any information concerning the dangerous propensities of the janitor was communicated to the owner. However, the trial court found generally that both the owner and manager were negligent in retaining, the janitor in "their employ." Shortly after the first assault the janitor assaulted P, also a …