Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Itlog
Itlog
CA
The last clear chance doctrine is used in tort law for cases involving negligence and is
applied when both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for an accident that
resulted in harm. When applied in states with contributory negligence laws, it is often
seen as a type of exception or limitation to those laws. The doctrine considers which
party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm.Therefore, a
negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last
clear chance to avoid the accident. A defendant may also use the doctrine as a defense
by showing that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.Under some
a defendant’s subsequent negligence may still recover. For example, if the plaintiff
cannot avoid the harm by exercising reasonable vigilance and care, or the defendant
negligently fails to utilize with reasonable care and competence his opportunity to avoid
the harm.According to the last clear chance doctrine, if both parties were negligent but
one's negligent act occurred significantly later in time than the other's, or if it was
impossible to determine who's fault or negligence caused the incident to occur, the
person who had the last clear chance to stop the impending harm but didn't do so is
responsible for the consequences that resulted from it. In other words, the rule states
that a person's prior negligence does not bar them from being held liable for damages
brought on by their subsequent negligence, provided they had the final reasonable
railroad track was the primary cause of the tragedy. The unlucky incident that befell the
jeepney's driver and passengers was not at all the fault of the unaware drivers and
passengers. They also didn't engage in any overt behavior that suggested they didn't
care about their personal safety. The theory of last clear chance therefore cannot be
used in the absence of prior negligence on the side of the respondents. LBC tried to use
the doctrine as a defense in order to avoid liability. In that case the deliver truck of LBC
driven by Jaime Tano made a left turn without observing traffic rules as stated in R.A.
4136. He did not make sure first that he could safely make a left turn and did not even
make any indication for other vehicles to know of his intention to make the turn. At that
time visibility was poor due to the dusty condition of the road and the motorcycle being
driven Sherwin Montinola smashed on the right side of the van. Sherwin died. Because
Sherwin was to blame for the accident, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The Court
of Appeals overturned the judgment finding Tano guilty after hearing an appeal. It was
this negligent act of Tano, which had placed his vehicle (LBC van) directly on the path of
the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction, that almost instantaneously caused
the collision to occur. Simple prudence required him not to attempt to cross the other
lane until after it would have been safe from and clear of any oncoming vehicle.