The Last Clear Chance Doctrine – How it Applies to Personal Injury

Not all personal injury cases are created equally, and liability between plaintiff and defendant may be shared between each other. When that happens, the last clear chance doctrine may be relevant to your case.

The doctrine of last clear chance states that the defendant in a lawsuit had the last opportunity to avoid or prevent injury in an accident. Their negligence caused them to ignore that chance, causing harm to the plaintiff.

On the other end, defendants can claim the plaintiff had the last opportunity to avoid harm instead, turning the last clear chance doctrine into another defense.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. commonly experiences about 39.5 million personal injury cases requiring medical treatment each year. Injuries can happen anywhere at any given time, thus, it’s important to find a personal injury lawyer to help you with your claim.

What is the Last Clear Chance Doctrine?

Sometimes during personal injury cases, when the plaintiff sues the defendant for their wrongdoing, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff has a contributing factor in the cause of the accident.

This is known as the contributory negligence rule, where defendants can claim the plaintiff had responsibility for the accident. This prevents the plaintiff from qualifying for a settlement.

At this time, the plaintiff may use the last chance doctrine. The plaintiff must prove the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid harming the plaintiff before events leading to injury.

The court will then decide if the plaintiff may qualify for reimbursement for their losses. The last clear chance doctrine is commonly used in states following the contributory negligence rule.

How to Prove Last Clear Chance in Your Personal Injury Claim

The last clear chance doctrine may involve both parties claiming some form of liability. However, it can be difficult to discern which negligent party could’ve prevented the damage and had the opportunity to avoid injury, but failed to do so.

For the plaintiff to use the last clear chance in personal injury claims, they must prove the following claims:

1. The plaintiff encountered an immediate threat of injury which couldn’t be avoided.
2. The defendant knew or should’ve known about the threat and had the last opportunity to avoid damage and harm.
3. A reasonable cautious individual would have acted to avoid damage.
4. The defendant failed to act reasonably, and having failed to take the last opportunity to prevent injury, has caused the plaintiff physical and emotional harm.

If the plaintiff can prove these things in court, even when contributory negligence is involved, the defendant can be held liable for paying the plaintiff’s losses.

How the Last Clear Chance Doctrine Applies to Defendants

The last clear chance doctrine applies to defendants who may be responsible if they reasonably had the last chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff in the final moments but failed.

However, the defendant can use the last clear chance doctrine as a defense by proving the plaintiff had a clear chance to avoid the accident.

Doing so can prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages. Otherwise, the defendant may have to pay for the plaintiff’s injuries since they didn’t exercise caution and had the opportunity to avoid loss.

When is the Last Clear Chance Doctrine Not Applicable?

The last clear chance doctrine may be less applicable in comparative fault states where courts measure fault as a percentage.

For example, the plaintiff may find themselves 20% at-fault for an accident, so the remaining 80% of damages are recoverable. Other states have various laws regarding comparative fault such as pure comparative and modified comparative fault.

Depending on your state, you should find a personal injury lawyer to help you understand your state’s laws.

Examples of Last Clear Chance in Personal Injury Law

There are several personal injury cases where the plaintiff attempted to apply last clear chance to recover damages.

In the Sparks v. Redinger case, the plaintiffs sustained injuries in a collision when their vehicle made a left-handed turn at a highway intersection. They then struck an oncoming tractor pulling two-travel-loaded trailers. The court ruled in favor of the defendant Homen and his employee Redinger, due to no signs of negligence causing the accident.

The plaintiff may have argued using the last clear chance doctrine, however, they were not able to prove that the defendant was able to avoid the accident and he was driving with reasonable caution. However, the plaintiffs were negligent in making a left turn recklessly, causing the accident and suffering damages.

For the Connolly v. Steakley case, the last clear chance doctrine cannot apply as the defendant could not reasonably see the plaintiff at the time of accident.

To defend yourself in a contributory negligence state, you may need a personal injury lawyer to represent your case. 

Who Carries the ‘Burden of Proof’?

The plaintiff usually carries the burden to prove the defendant was at-fault in ignoring the last clear chance doctrine. The plaintiff must ultimately prove why the defendant should be to blame for the cause of the accident.

The doctrine helps shift the blame to the party who had the last chance to avoid the circumstance. The plaintiff has the opportunity to recover damages if they are not entirely at-fault.

Which States Apply Last Clear Chance Doctrine?

The states that usually apply the last clear chance doctrine operate under contributory negligence, such as:

• Alabama
• Maryland
• North Carolina
• Virginia
• Washington D.C.
• Louisiana

Other states may use separate negligent laws such as pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence laws.

Alternatives to the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Alternatives to the last clear chance doctrine are the different forms of comparative negligence most states use to measure liability.

For instance, the pure comparative negligence rule applies when states measure liability as a percentage shared between both parties. The plaintiff’s overall settlement is then reduced by their liability.

Another type of negligence is modified comparative negligence, where the laws are similar to pure comparative negligence. The plaintiff only receives compensation if the defendant is at least 50% or 51% at-fault.

Disputing the Results of a Personal Injury Claim

The results of a personal injury claim may be disputed under the following guidelines:

• Appeal—if you disagree with the results of a personal injury trial, you can appeal to a higher court to review legal errors and overturn the decision. Either the plaintiff or defendant may appeal to the outcome.
• Dispute in court—you may dispute the matter if the plaintiff or defendant’s assertions are misleading, exaggerated, or false. For instance, the defendant can dispute the claim if the plaintiff didn’t establish a duty of care or if the plaintiff was negligent in their injuries.
• Counter settlement offer—if your claims adjuster or employer offers an inadequate or unfair settlement, you may send a letter further proving your claim.

The plaintiff or defendant may appeal the jury verdict to a higher court. The party must have reasonable permitted grounds for the higher courts to overturn the decision.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims vary per state, so submit your claim as soon as possible.

Find a Personal Injury Attorney Who Can Assist You

LegalASAP can assist you in finding a personal injury attorney if your case involves the last clear chance doctrine. Our network expands to 500+ firms across the United States, so submit a free short consultation form and we’ll try our best to contact and find an attorney near you.

For other inquiries or questions, you can call our hotline at 888-927-3080. Don’t wait, and contact us now so we can connect you with an attorney soon.