Also known as: last clear chance doctrine · last-clear-chance rule · last clear chance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine that permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover when the defendant had a later and superior opportunity to avoid the harm after the plaintiff's negligence placed the plaintiff in peril.
Carla ignored an Employees Only sign and entered a service bay at Apex Auto. Mechanic Dan saw her near a raised idling vehicle without wheel chocks yet continued the test. The vehicle rolled off and struck Carla. A jury could find that Dan possessed the last clear chance after Carla's entry and therefore allow recovery despite her contributory negligence.
Landon Long deliberately drove across a posted hazardous area at Frontier Sustainability to save time. Site manager Lila Lin monitored live feeds showing a concealed soft spot in his path and possessed an open radio channel for several seconds. Lin chose not to warn him. The truck sank and tipped, injuring Long. A jury could conclude that Lin held the last clear chance after Long entered the zone.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ashley entered a rotating turbine nacelle without following lockout procedures at Union Renewable. Monitor Andrew received repeated alerts and live camera feeds showing Ashley pinned with legs in the rotor path. Andrew delayed shutdown to avoid output loss. The blades struck Ashley. A jury could determine that Andrew retained the last clear chance after Ashley became trapped.
Willie ducked under tape and entered a restricted construction zone as a shortcut despite posted detours. A Peak Homes truck driver saw Willie thirty seconds earlier but continued reversing without stopping. The truck struck Willie. A jury could find that the driver held the last clear chance after Willie entered the zone.
No. The doctrine requires that the defendant possessed a later and superior opportunity to avoid the harm after the plaintiff's negligence placed the plaintiff in peril. Shared fault alone does not trigger the exception.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must show that the defendant negligently failed to use a then-existing opportunity to avoid the harm, that the plaintiff was unable to avoid it by reasonable care immediately before the injury, and that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the peril.
Supporting sources
In many jurisdictions the doctrine has declined or disappeared once comparative fault replaced contributory negligence, though some courts retain it for cases still governed by the older rule.
Yes, provided the defendant had actual knowledge of the peril and a clear opportunity to avoid it after the plaintiff's negligence placed the plaintiff in danger.
Supporting sources
…least in part, for his own death. Was there contributory fault on the part of Willard or Lewis? Did the police officer have the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident? Did Willard and Lewis, by fleeing from the police, "assume the risk" of the accident? These are interesting questions of tort law, not of constitutional governance.…