FREE Case Review (866) 588-0600

Last Clear Chance Doctrine Legally Explained (2024 Update)

The Last Clear Chance Doctrine is a legal principle used in tort law which states that even if a plaintiff was negligent, the defendant may still be held liable if they had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so. In essence, the doctrine shifts the focus from the plaintiff’s negligence to the defendant’s actions immediately preceding the accident.
Awards & recognition
Collen Clark Published by Collen Clark

Last Clear Chance Doctrine Explained

According to Law Cornell, the last clear chance doctrine, a fundamental principle in tort law concerning negligence, comes into play when both the plaintiff and defendant share responsibility for an accident resulting in harm [1].

When applied in states with contributory negligence laws, it is often seen as a type of exception or limitation to those laws. The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm.

In essence, even if the plaintiff was negligent, they may still be eligible for damages if they can demonstrate that the defendant had the last clear chance to avert the accident. Conversely, defendants can utilize this doctrine as a defense, arguing that the plaintiff had the final opportunity to evade the accident.

In certain situations, a plaintiff who negligently placed themselves in harm’s way due to a defendant’s subsequent negligence may still seek recovery. This could occur when the plaintiff is unable to avoid harm despite exercising reasonable care, or if the defendant negligently fails to utilize their opportunity to prevent harm with due care and competence.

Example of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

As stated by Forbes, understanding the last clear chance doctrine becomes clearer with an example [2].

Imagine a pedestrian plaintiff decides to cross a street outside a designated crosswalk area, an act considered negligent and contributing to any potential accident. Meanwhile, a defendant drives down the street, noticing the pedestrian crossing but failing to stop in time, resulting in an accident where the pedestrian is hit.

In this case, the last clear chance rule could come into play. Although contributory negligence rules might suggest the plaintiff cannot recover compensation due to their own unsafe crossing, the defendant had the final and best opportunity to prevent the accident.

What are Comparative Fault Laws?

According to SCLG, under comparative fault, also known as comparative negligence, you are still eligible to recover damages even if you share some responsibility for the incident that caused your injury [3].

In a personal injury lawsuit, the defendant claims your own negligence caused or contributed to your own harm. Once the defendant makes that claim, the jury would then decide what percentage of fault is due to your own negligence. That percentage will reduce your overall award for damages.

States that adopt comparative negligence laws typically follow one of two systems:

Pure Comparative Negligence Laws: Under these laws, even if you are primarily at fault for the accident, you are still entitled to a portion of the damages, reduced by your degree of fault. California, for example, employs this system of pure comparative negligence.

Modified Comparative Negligence Laws: These laws incorporate either a 50% or a 51% rule.

In states with a 50% rule, such as Nevada, you are barred from recovering any damages if you are found to be 50% or more responsible for the accident.
In states that follow a 51% rule, like Kansas, you are prohibited from collecting damages if you are 51% or more at fault.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial in determining your eligibility for compensation following an accident where multiple parties may be at fault.

What is Comparative Negligence?

In legal matters, comparative negligence serves as a guiding principle for courts to determine the amount of damages a plaintiff can seek in a negligence claim based on the level of fault attributed to each party involved.

When an injured party bears partial responsibility due to their own negligent actions, the court may assign a percentage of fault to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

For instance, if the court allocates 60% of the fault to the defendant and 40% to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s recoverable damages may be limited to 60% instead of the full amount.

Related Articles:

If you feel that your rights have been compromised in any of these matters, you should contact a personal injury attorney who can help.

Get a Free Lawsuit Evaluation With Our Lawyers

The Litigation Group at Schmidt & Clark, LLP is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focuses on the representation of plaintiffs in lawsuits. We are handling individual litigation nationwide and currently accepting new legal challenges in all 50 states.

If you or a loved one was involved with these matters, you should contact our law firm immediately for a free case evaluation. You may be entitled to a settlement by filing a suit and we can help.



Free Confidential Case Evaluation

Verified 100% Secure SiteTo contact us for a free review of your potential case, please fill out the form below or call us toll free 24 hrs/day by dialing: (866) 588-0600.