[ad_1]
Clear Last Chance is a doctrine in civil law that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant even if the plaintiff has committed concurrent negligence, as long as the defendant could have acted to avoid danger. The doctrine applies to cases where the plaintiff is considered helpless or careless, and the defendant is considered inattentive or observant.
Clear Last Chance is a doctrine in civil law that simply states that if a plaintiff has committed concurrent negligence, but the defendant could have acted to avoid danger, the plaintiff can still recover damages from the defendant. This doctrine can be implied in a variety of circumstances and is designed to hold individuals liable for tort violations even when those violations were accompanied by contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
In a simple example of how the clear last chance doctrine might be used, if a driver involved in a rear-end collision sues the driver who did the rear-end collision, the defendant could argue that the first driver braked suddenly as a result of inattention or negligence. The plaintiff could admit this, but could argue that the defendant still had time to take action to avoid a collision, and therefore that the defendant should be held liable for damages.
The plaintiff may be considered “helpless” or “careless” in reviews to decide whether the clear last chance doctrine can be applied to a case. In the case of a “helpless” actor, he has ended up in a situation that cannot be avoided due to negligence, while an inattentive actor might escape harm, but pay no attention to his surroundings. In either case, if someone injures the plaintiff, there is a possibility of being held liable under the argument that the defendant should have exercised due diligence to protect the plaintiff from harm.
An example of a helpless plaintiff might be someone who was speeding down an icy road and flipped over. The actor is unable to get out of harm’s way at this point, but someone driving down the road might exercise caution and stop while the actor has taken control of the vehicle. An inattentive complainer could be someone who drifts beyond the center line of the road due to lack of attention, meaning a reasonable person would drift to avoid the drifting car and probably act like honking to warn the other driver .
Similarly, defendants can be classified as inattentive or observant. Attentive defendants are people who saw the danger and failed to take steps to avoid it, while inattentive defendants did not see the danger because they were negligent and therefore failed to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring. If the plaintiff is impotent and the defendant is complying, the clear last chance doctrine usually applies. In cases of impotent plaintiffs versus inattentive defendants, or inattentive plaintiffs versus observant defendants, the doctrine may apply. When both sides were inattentive, the clear last chance doctrine is not applied.
[ad_2]