The legal doctrine of contributory negligence can be a fairly harsh way to deal with fault and blame in a courtroom.
The basics of this negligence policy state that a person cannot receive compensation for damages or injury if they contributed to the accident in any notable way.
This can employ a number of different specific doctrines in certain jurisdictions to help decide whether or not a person did or did not contribute to the cause of injury or damage.
Known as last clear chance, this particular legal policy can significantly change the outcome of a contributory claim.
Last clear chance, essentially, argues that if a person had control enough to avoid injury at the last possible moment and did not do their best to evade the incident, they can be found partially culpable.
In contributory jurisdictions, that partial liability is enough to bar someone from receiving any compensation whatsoever.
To clarify this doctrine, consider an example.
One vehicle strikes another at an intersection in which the lights are out.
If one driver decides to file a suit against the other and can prove that they were not the last driver able to brake and avoid the accident, that driver may be able to prove that the other driver had the last clear chance to stop injuries from occurring.
A commonly cited reason for this particular doctrine's use is to provide a more distinct strategy that can combat suit claims that otherwise would have to be fully paid by the defendant.
Both plaintiffs and defendants can use last clear chance, which can prove both that a certain person was not to blame for the accident and place fault on the other driver.
Contributory negligence can make the particulars of a claim significantly more important, complicating the process of claim-filing and arguing.
Contact a personal injury attorney for more information.