4. Last Clear Chance

Last Clear Chance

The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply when only one of the parties was negligent. For the doctrine to apply, it must be shown that both parties were negligent but the negligent act of one was appreciably later in time than that of the other. It may also apply when it is impossible to determine who caused the resulting harm, thus, the one who had the last opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so will be held liable. (Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, 04 Nov. 2020)

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Also known as the “Doctrine of Discovered Peril.”

Even though a person’s own acts may have placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured is entitled to recover if the defendant through the exercise of reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff.

Possible Scenarios Contemplated Under the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

• When both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one party happens later in time than the negligent act of the other party; and
• When it is impossible to determine which party caused the accident, the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so may be held liable. (Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, 04 Nov. 2020)

DUE DILIGENCE

Requisites

• Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his own negligence;
• Defendant knew of such position of the plaintiff;
• Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance and;
• Defendant’s failure to exercise that last clear chance was a proximate cause of the accident or injury.

Who may invoke: In a civil negligence claim, an injured plaintiff may invoke the doctrine; it may also be raised by an accused in a reckless-imprudence case. Criminal liability must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

The law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

The doctrine, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs negligence.

As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.

The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is a legal principle that applies in tort law. The doctrine provides that if both the plaintiff and the defendant had the opportunity to avoid an accident, but only the defendant had the "last clear chance" to do so, then the defendant can be held liable for the resulting damages.

The doctrine is often applied in cases where the plaintiff has contributed to the accident in some way, but where the defendant had a final opportunity to prevent the harm from occurring. Under the doctrine, the defendant is considered to have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm, even if the plaintiff was initially negligent.

For example, imagine a situation where a pedestrian is jaywalking across a busy street, and a driver fails to see them and strikes them with their car. In this scenario, the pedestrian may have been partially at fault for jaywalking, but the driver may still be liable for the accident if they had the last clear chance to avoid hitting the pedestrian, such as by braking or swerving to avoid them.

The doctrine of last clear chance is an important principle in tort law because it may permit an injured plaintiff to recover despite the plaintiff’s prior negligence when the defendant had the last clear opportunity to avoid the injury and failed to do so. By holding the defendant responsible for taking the last opportunity to prevent harm, the doctrine helps to ensure that parties who have the ability to avoid an accident are held accountable for their actions.

However, the doctrine of last clear chance is not always applicable in all cases, and it is subject to limitations and exceptions. For example, if the plaintiff's negligence was so extreme that it was the sole cause of the accident, then the doctrine may not apply. Similarly, if the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident, then they may not be held liable under the doctrine. Ultimately, the application of the doctrine of last clear chance will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.