Abstract

"There are few, if any, legal doctrines that are more difficult of logical application to varied and ever varying situations than that known as the doctrine of last clear chance, … the rules laid down do not apply to the ever varying situations and must be explained and modified again. This process has not yet been completed." This statement from a recent Arizona case, Odekirk v. Austin, is indicative of the struggle many courts, including Arizona's, have had with last clear chance. In this case an inattentive plaintiff was running down a busy street with his back to the traffic. His negligence had not terminated nor had it culminated in a situation from which he could not extricate himself. The defendant driving down the street reasonably could have seen but did not actually see the plaintiff in time to avoid the collision which injured him. The court held that the last clear chance doctrine was not applicable in this situation.

The main reasons for the difficulty with last clear chance are: first, the theory upon which to base or justify the doctrine; and second, the many fact situations to which the doctrine may be applied.

How to Cite