“Last Clear Chance”
Published .
The general concept
In jurisdictions that retain contributory negligence, a plaintiff’s own negligence may bar recovery even if the defendant was also negligent. The last clear chance doctrine is a narrow exception: it can allow recovery when the plaintiff’s earlier negligence placed them in danger, but the defendant later had a separate, meaningful opportunity to avoid the injury and failed to use it. The name does not mean that the person who could have reacted a split second before impact automatically pays.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland recognizes last clear chance as a limited qualification to its contributory-negligence bar. The plaintiff must show negligence by both parties and something new or sequential that gave the defendant a fresh opportunity to avert the consequences of the plaintiff’s negligence. The defendant must have known, or in circumstances creating a duty should have known, of the peril in time to avoid the injury through ordinary care. If both parties’ negligence was concurrent, or the defendant had no actual time and means to respond after the plaintiff entered peril, the doctrine does not apply. A driver’s earlier negligence alone cannot simply be relabeled as a last clear chance. The doctrine can arise in pedestrian cases, but it depends on evidence about when the danger became apparent, visibility, distance, speed, reaction time, and whether a distinct later opportunity existed. It is generally for a jury only when the evidence supports each required element.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Liscombe v. Potomac Edison Co., 303 Md. 619, 495 A.2d 838 (1985).; Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental Corp., 130 Md. App. 193, 745 A.2d 457 (2000).; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 160 Md. App. 348, 864 A.2d 201 (2004).; Wooldridge v. Price, 184 Md. App. 451, 966 A.2d 955 (2009).