The Principle is Explained in the Case of LBC Vs.

CA

(G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995):

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

circumstances, a plaintiff who has negligently subjected themselves to a risk caused by

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

opportunity to take reasonable precautions to stop the imminent harm. To emphasize,

the petitioners' failure to ensure that both drivers and pedestrians could safely cross the

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.