Question: What is the “Last Clear Chance Doctrine”?
Answer: It is a legal excuse for the plaintiff where the defendant failed to take advantage of the “chance to avoid” the incident that lead to the injury of the plaintiff. The application of the doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ has been firmly established by the courts of this state, and stated broadly is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not prevent a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant by exercising reasonable care, might have avoided injuring the plaintiff, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. Under the last clear chance doctrine, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence is excused whenever the defendant had a later occasion to avert the calamity and negligently failed to take advantage of that opportunity. In order for this rule to apply, the defendant’s negligence must have intervened after the plaintiff’s negligence ceased. However, an exception to this timing requirement applies if the defendant has actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s peril. In the face of actual knowledge (regardless of whether the defendant’s negligence is before or after the plaintiff’s negligence), a special duty arises, requiring the defendant to use every reasonable means to avoid injuring the plaintiff.
Answer: It is a legal excuse for the plaintiff where the defendant failed to take advantage of the “chance to avoid” the incident that lead to the injury of the plaintiff. The application of the doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ has been firmly established by the courts of this state, and stated broadly is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not prevent a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant by exercising reasonable care, might have avoided injuring the plaintiff, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. Under the last clear chance doctrine, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence is excused whenever the defendant had a later occasion to avert the calamity and negligently failed to take advantage of that opportunity. In order for this rule to apply, the defendant’s negligence must have intervened after the plaintiff’s negligence ceased. However, an exception to this timing requirement applies if the defendant has actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s peril. In the face of actual knowledge (regardless of whether the defendant’s negligence is before or after the plaintiff’s negligence), a special duty arises, requiring the defendant to use every reasonable means to avoid injuring the plaintiff.