Also known as:subsequent negligence doctrine · subsequent negligence · last clear chance doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine that permits a plaintiff who negligently placed himself at risk to recover from a defendant whose subsequent negligence caused the harm. Recovery is available when the plaintiff was unable to avoid the harm by reasonable care immediately before the injury and the defendant failed to use a then-existing opportunity to prevent it.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Pinned Technician and Delayed Shutdown
Scott Summers bypassed a required lockout and entered an active turbine nacelle. He slipped and became pinned with his legs in the rotor path, unable to free himself. Andrew, monitoring the console, received repeated alerts and camera feeds but delayed the emergency shutdown to avoid an output interruption. The blades struck Summers's legs. Because Summers could not extricate himself immediately before the harm and Andrew failed to use the available opportunity to stop the rotor, the doctrine allows Summers to recover despite his initial negligence.
Weakened Leg and Third-Party Trampling
Serena Soto suffered a leg injury when her employer negligently supplied a tractor without a safety step. After returning to work with a weakened leg, a transport company left a gate unsecured. Escaping cattle knocked Soto down and trampled the injured leg. Soto sues the original employer for the additional harm. Authority is unsettled on whether the employer's initial negligence extends to the later injury caused by the transport company's independent negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Dictionaries
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What must a plaintiff show to recover under the subsequent-negligence doctrine despite his own negligence?+
The plaintiff must show that he negligently subjected himself to risk of harm from the defendant's later negligence, that he was unable to avoid the harm by reasonable vigilance immediately before the injury, and that the defendant failed to use a then-existing opportunity to prevent the harm.
Supporting sources
Does the doctrine automatically make an original tortfeasor liable when a weakened plaintiff later suffers harm from a third party's negligence?+
No. The Restatement expresses no opinion on whether an actor whose negligence weakened the plaintiff's condition is liable for later harm caused by a third person's subsequent negligence. Courts divide on whether the third party's negligence is a superseding cause.
Supporting sources
Is the doctrine limited to cases in which the plaintiff is completely helpless at the moment of harm?+
Yes. The rule requires that immediately preceding the harm the plaintiff was unable to avoid it by the exercise of reasonable vigilance and care.
…outline of the specific form to be adopted. Although several states which apply comparative negligence concepts retain the last clear chance doctrine (see Schwartz, supra , § 7.2, p. 134), the better reasoned position seems to be that when true comparative negligence is adopted, the need for lastclearchance as a palliative of the…
TortsNegligence · Problems relating to causationUBEFoundational