Last Clear Chance Doctrine

[Imp4]

Well this is written into state law so.

Right, and what matters is what wins in court.
Ask OJ Simpson.

 

[PWMDMD]

And that is my point entirely - and your "good of the many example" nails it. So someone steps into the street, and someone does there best to avoid them but still hits them. Two good people, bad timing. Now what. Oh yes, we will let the lawyers and insurance companies sort it out? All that does is benefit the lawyers and insurance companies and not the many.

Our entire legal system is founded on common law - and I think the common man on the street would say that if you can avoid running someone over at all costs you should - and most would agree even in these political times. So why do we need more laws?

Another scenario that illustrates why not going to court should not be the objective of whether or not a law exists. The court process is often needed to determine the facts of the case.

Someone you love in a rare moment of lawlessness jaywalks and is hit by what appears to be a legally operated vehicle. Police come and do their investigation. The driver was legally on the phone using his hands-free. The police conclude it was the jaywalker's fault since they were engaged in illegal activity.

A civil suit is filed and it is discovered after interviewing the person the driver was speaking to a moment before the accident that the driver said, "Look at this stupid jaywalker - 100 points for sure" as he hit them.

You're satisfied with well jeepers they were jaywalking so c'est la vie? The law has to be broad enough to capture even these kinds of situations. I have 25 years of listening to my FIL who was a trial attorney talk about cases and I can tell very few situations are ever black and white and even if they are it is the discovery process that determines that.

 

[MCompact]

Most every state has adopted comparative negligence. The jury determines the percentage of negligence each party bears and damages are adjusted accordingly. For example, if the jury finds the plaintiff's damages are $150,000 and also finds his share of fault to be 20%, the plaintiff would recover$120,000.
Note that I have only practiced criminal law(as a prosecutor) since 2019, so keeping up with tort law is not a priority.

 

[bullwinkle]

My wife turned off of a street into a Walmart parking lot . As she was driving down the main entrance lane a girl cut across in front of her and my wife hit her in the passenger door . The girl's insurance pushed back on taking responsibility but eventually it went to a third party mediator where we prevailed .

We have this wonderful policy of "no fault on private property" here in Ohio, which excuses all kinds of erratic parking lot hijlinks!

 

[SeaJay]

Right, and what matters is what wins in court.
Ask OJ Simpson.

It has to be a humdinger of an accident to wind up in court. Insurance companies do what they can to reach an agreement before outside legal counsel needs to be brought in. Those billable hours magically increase in some states when friendly judges help counsel to drag out the process.

 

[Allaneddie]

An interesting concept. Basically this is why vehicles backing out of a parking space may not be at fault if a car hits them. OR if someone who pulls in front of a tractor trailer is responsible if they get rear ended by said tractor trailer.

"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."

Sounds like maritime navigation rules. Although there are specific rules about who passes whom with regard to port and starboard and a lot of other rules, the final rule is that both captains have the duty to try to avoid collision.