Also known as:last-clear-chance · doctrine of last clear chance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine that permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages when the defendant had a later and superior opportunity to avoid the harm after the plaintiff's negligence placed the plaintiff in peril.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Mechanic Continues Diagnostic Test
Luke Latham walked past an Employees Only sign into Apex Auto's service bay to check on his vehicle. Mechanic Lars Lindstrom saw Luke standing near a raised idling car without wheel chocks and continued the diagnostic test instead of stopping or securing the vehicle. The car rolled off the lift and struck Luke. Luke's earlier decision to enter the restricted area placed him in peril, but Lars's subsequent failure to act when he had a clear opportunity to prevent the collision allows Luke to recover despite his own negligence.
Driver Ignores Multiple Alerts
Leah Lamb bypassed a required lockout procedure and entered a rotating turbine nacelle at Union Renewable's wind farm. Control room operator Lillian Locke received repeated automated alerts and live camera feeds showing Leah pinned with her legs in the rotor path. Locke reviewed only the first alerts and delayed shutdown to avoid an output interruption, allowing the blades to strike Leah. Leah's initial shortcut created the peril, yet Locke's later awareness and opportunity to stop the blades before impact supplies the last clear chance that overcomes Leah's negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Officer Continues High-Speed Chase
Layla Lane fled from a police officer in a high-speed pursuit through city streets. The officer made a reckless sharp turn at high speed that placed his vehicle directly in the path of an oncoming car driven by Levi Lowe. Levi had no time to avoid the collision. Although Layla's flight contributed to the danger, the officer's subsequent decision to continue the pursuit at extreme speed when he could have stopped safely supplies the last clear chance that permits recovery.
Manufacturer Skips Direct Notice
Lighthouse Shipping purchased a defective vehicle from Lexicon Media's dealer. Lexicon Media knew the vehicle was prone to rollover but failed to send direct notice to Lighthouse Shipping after the sale. The rollover occurred when the vehicle was used in ordinary operations. Lighthouse Shipping's contributory fault in operation did not eliminate Lexicon Media's later opportunity to warn the buyer directly after discovering the defect, which constitutes the last clear chance that overcomes any contributory fault by the purchaser.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does last clear chance apply when the plaintiff's negligence occurs after the defendant's negligence?+
No. The doctrine requires that the defendant's opportunity to avoid harm arise after the plaintiff's negligence has already placed the plaintiff in peril. When the plaintiff's negligence is simultaneous with or follows the defendant's, the exception does not apply and contributory negligence remains a complete bar.
Supporting sources
What must a plaintiff prove to invoke last clear chance under Restatement § 479?+
The plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the plaintiff's peril, possessed a then-existing opportunity to avoid the harm, and failed to exercise reasonable care to use that opportunity. The plaintiff must also have been unable to avoid the harm by reasonable vigilance immediately before the injury.
Supporting sources
Does last clear chance survive the adoption of comparative negligence?+
In jurisdictions that have replaced contributory negligence with comparative fault, last clear chance is generally obsolete because relative degrees of fault are now apportioned directly. A few states retain the doctrine as an exception even after adopting comparative negligence.
Supporting sources
Can a defendant who merely should have discovered the plaintiff's peril invoke last clear chance?+
Some formulations of the doctrine require only that the defendant should have discovered the peril through reasonable vigilance, while others demand actual knowledge. The Restatement distinguishes these patterns and applies the doctrine when the defendant negligently fails to use an existing opportunity after the plaintiff is helpless.
Supporting sources
523 U.S. 833 (1998)Torts
…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.…