Also known as: supervening negligence doctrine · supervening negligence · last clear chance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An exception to the contributory negligence bar that permits a plaintiff to recover when the defendant's negligence occurs after the plaintiff's and supplies a final opportunity to avoid the harm.
Jenna's mechanic at Bridge Auto left her wheel lug nuts loose after a brake job. Jenna later struck a deep unrepaired pothole that other cars had crossed without incident. The wheel detached and caused her crash. Bridge Auto's earlier omission left Jenna vulnerable, yet the city's failure to fix the known hazard supplied the final opportunity to prevent injury after Jenna's own conduct.
Caleb deliberately drove across a posted hazardous area at Frontier Sustainability to save time. Site manager Nadine watched on live surveillance and had seconds plus a radio to warn him of the concealed soft spot ahead. Nadine chose not to act. Her later knowledge and means to intervene created the final opportunity to avoid harm after Caleb had already placed himself in danger.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ashley entered a rotating turbine nacelle without the required lockout to meet inspection quotas. He slipped and became pinned with his legs in the rotor path. Monitor Andrew received repeated alerts and camera feeds but delayed shutdown to avoid output loss. Andrew's later access to real-time information supplied the final opportunity to stop the blades after Ashley's initial shortcut.
Brian walked under an operating crane despite posted warnings requiring workers to stay clear. Operator Tammy saw him enter the swing radius but lacked time to halt the descending load. Brian's earlier decision to ignore the signs placed him in peril. Tammy's subsequent observation did not create a final opportunity to avoid the strike.
No. The doctrine requires the defendant's negligence to occur after the plaintiff's and to supply a final opportunity to avoid harm. When the plaintiff's fault comes later or simultaneously, the contributory negligence bar remains in effect under the governing rule.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual knowledge or a superior opportunity to discover the peril immediately before the harm and failed to use reasonable care to avoid it. The plaintiff must also have been unable to avoid the harm through reasonable vigilance at that moment.
Supporting sources
The doctrine originated as an exception to the complete bar of contributory negligence. In comparative negligence jurisdictions the need for the exception diminishes because fault is apportioned rather than barring recovery entirely.
Supporting sources
No. The inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff could avoid harm by reasonable vigilance immediately preceding the injury, not on earlier opportunities the plaintiff may have had.
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.…