Comparative Negligence and the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Can You Claim Damages for Injuries If You Could Have Avoided the Accident?

In New Jersey, as in every state, the vast majority of personal injury claims are based on the legal principle of negligence. To prove negligence, you must show that the defendant acted unreasonably under the circumstances. For example, if you’ve been hurt in a motor vehicle accident, evidence showing that the other party ran a stop sign or red light is proof of their negligence. But what if you could have avoided the accident? What if you had sufficient time to brake but were distracted? Can you still seek compensation for your losses?

The Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Historically, New Jersey (and all other states) followed a legal principle known as contributory negligence. Under this approach, if an injured party contributed in any way to causing an accident, there could be no recovery. When contributory negligence was the rule of law in New Jersey, courts applied the Last Clear Chance Doctrine, a legal principle that assigns liability to the party who had the last clear opportunity to prevent an accident. As a result, an injured person who could have prevented the accident would be precluded from receiving compensation from another party whose negligence primarily caused the accident.

Due to concerns about abuses of the contributory negligence rule, New Jersey and most other states replaced contributory negligence with the legal principle of comparative negligence. With comparative negligence, the court first determines the full amount of damages needed to compensate the injured party for their losses. Next, the court allocates a percentage of fault to each party. Finally, the injured party’s financial award is reduced by their percentage of fault. So, for example, if a court finds that a party should receive $100,000 in damages, but that the party was 20% at fault for causing the accident, then the award will be reduced to $80,000.

New Jersey follows a particular type of comparative negligence referred to as modified comparative negligence. Under modified comparative negligence, an injured person who is more than 50% responsible for causing their own injuries may not recover anything.

Under the comparative negligence approach, the Last Clear Chance doctrine has little or no relevance, as a court allocates a percentage of fault to each party. A party that had the last clear opportunity to prevent an accident may still recover, as long as their percentage of fault does not exceed 50%.

Contact the Law Offices of David J. Karbasian, PC

Send us an email today or call us at 856-600-HURT to schedule an appointment to discuss your personal injury claim. Evening and weekend consultations are available upon request. We can come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary.
We handle all personal injury claims, including motor vehicle accident lawsuits, on a contingent fee basis. You will not incur any legal fees unless we recover monetary compensation for your losses.