Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trauscht v. Lamb, 270 P.2d 1071.

34 citing documents.

Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, , Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Reynolds 466 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Reynolds 466 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Rule 272, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , .
Evans v. Dineen 459 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1969
Evans v. Dineen 459 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1969
Rowley v. Rowley 440 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rowley v. Rowley 440 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In determining whether particular instructions should he given, the evidence should be viewed favorably to supporting *573 the instruction, , , , , Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corp., 3 Ariz.App.
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
Rule 272, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , .
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Uptain 306 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1957
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Uptain 306 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1957
The doctrine of last clear chance as it applies in this jurisdiction was correctly re-enunciated (although incorrectly applied) in our recent case of Trauscht v. Lamb, 1954, , .
Hirsh v. Manley 300 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1956
Hirsh v. Manley 300 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1956
The doctrine of last clear chance as defined in the Restatement, Torts, Section 479, has been quoted with approval by this court on more than one occasion, Casey v. Marshall, 1946, , ; Trauscht v. Lamb, 1954, , ; and, briefly stated, this doctrine permits a plaintiff to recover, even though negligent, if he finds himself in a situation where he is.
Bean v. Gorby 292 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1956
Bean v. Gorby 292 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1956
5, Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., p. 2505; , ; , .
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
We think this argument ignores a basic element of the doctrine of last clear chance as *264 , , namely, that a person must negligently subject himself to a risk of harm from another before the doctrine has application.