Oldaker v. Virginia Railway & Power Co.

Supreme Court of Virginia June 16, 1921

Oldaker v. Virginia Railway & Power Co., 130 Va. 475 (Va. 1921)

107 S.E. 634; 1921 Va. LEXIS 167

Sims

Opinion of the Court

Sims, J.,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the following opinion of the court:

The case presents no question of law which is not well settled; but purely questions of fact. And in the view we take of the evidence there is only one question of fact to which we need give consideration, and that is the following:

1. Does this case fall within the doctrine of the last clear chance?

In view of the facts which appear from the statement preceding this opinion, and which need not be repeated here, we are of opinion that this question must be answered in .the affirmative.

The case must, therefore, be reversed and judgment will be entered for the plaintiffs under section 6365 of the Code.

Reversed and final judgment for plaintiffs.

Reference

Full Case Name: A. L. Oldaker, an Infant, &c. v. Virginia Railway and Power Company and A. A. Oldaker v. Virginia Railway and Power Company
Status: Published
Syllabus: Grossings — Last Clear Chance — Case at Bar. — Plaintiff, riding upon one mule and driving three others came to a crossing over defendant’s double tracked railroad and stopped to allow a car to pass. After the car had passed, plaintiff looked along the tracks in one direction and saw a car approaching about three or four hundred yards away. He looked in the other direction and failed to see a car about the same distance away. With his whole attention obviously upon the car which he had observed he hurried to cross, thinking he had time, and was struck by the car that he had not seen. The track was straight and there was nothing to obstruct the motorman’s view of the crossing and of the attitude and peril of plaintiff. Notwithstanding, the motorman made no attempt to check the speed of the car and sounded no warning. On the other hand, the motorman of the other car which was approximately at the. same distance away when plaintiff’s perilous position became obvious, stopped his car before it reached the crossing. Held: That the motorman of the car that struck plaintiff had the last clear chance to prevent the accident.