In analyzing the doctrine of "last clear chance," a qualification of the co.μtributory negligence rule, several questions must be considered. Perhaps the most important one is, (1) Does the court apply the doctrine of discovered peril or is it enough that defendant should have known, by the exercise of reasonable care, plaintiff's peril? (2) Is the doctrine of "last clear chance" confined to cases where the negligence of plaintiff has spent itself? (3) If the doctrine of undiscovered peril is followed for a licensee, will the court still apply the rule of discovered peril if plaintiff is a trespasser? (4) Whichever doctrine is followed, must defendant's negligence be a new act of negligence subsequent to plaintiff's negligence or is plaintiff allowed recovery if prior negligence of defendant continues after plaintiff's negligence to the time of the accident?
THE "LAST CLEAR CHANCE" DOCTRINE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss5/9