Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 115-122

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 115...
... 115 decision granting the MTA's motion for a summary judgment, in part, because "no reasonable jury could find that [Anemone was terminated] out of a desire to punish him for his allegedly protected expressive activity."538 2.
From page 116...
... 116 Cases 640 B Whether the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Applies to Railroads 640 1.
From page 117...
... 117 C Motor Vehicle Collisions with Trains Including at Highway– 644 Railroad Grade Crossings 1.
From page 118...
... 118 acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently caused his truck to collide with a locomotive by stopping his truck on the tracks.
From page 119...
... 119 5. Presumption of Contributory Negligence in Occupied 653 Crossing Cases Another law review article discusses the "occupied crossing" doctrine and contributory negligence and explains that the occupied crossing doctrine presumes that unless a crossing is determined to be ultra-hazardous, a plaintiff is contributorily negligent when the plaintiff's vehicle collides with a train in a railroad crossing.558 Cases 654 E
From page 120...
... 120 G Liability of a Railroad Because of Defective Crossing Gates 657 Statutes and Regulations 657 1.
From page 121...
... 121 4. Railroad Not Liable When a Minor Is on the Tracks by Avoiding 661 a Safety Gate In Boyd v.
From page 122...
... 122 I Last Clear Chance Doctrine 664 1.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.