DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

(DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL or DOCTRINE OF

SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE)

This is also called as the “Humanitarian Negligence

Doctrine.” Where both parties are negligent but the

negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an

appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last

reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and

fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,

without reference to the prior negligence of the other

party (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).

The doctrine of last clear chance is a theory adopted to

mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence of

the plaintiff (Phoenix Construction Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-

65295, March 10, 1987).

Requisites:

1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts

and he is unable to get out from such situation by any

means;

2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and

knows or should have known that the plaintiff was

unable to extricate himself therefrom; and

TORTS AND DAMAGES

525

3. Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to

avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary

care but failed to do so, and the accident occurred as

a proximate result of such failure (Pineda, 2009).

Instances when doctrine not applicable

1. When the injury or accident cannot be avoided by the

application of all means at hand after the peril has

been discovered (Pantranco North Expressway v.

Baesa, G.R. Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989);

2. If the defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause

and which was still in operation up to the time the

injury was inflicted;

3. Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an action

against a carrier based on contract (Bustamante v. CA,

G.R. No. 89880, February 6, 1991);

4. If the actor, though negligent, was not aware of the

danger or risk brought about by the prior fraud or

negligent act;

5. In case of a collapse of a building or structure (De Roy

v. CA, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988);

6. Where both parties are negligent (Philippine

National Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891,

November 2, 2006);

7. In case of collision, it applies in a suit between the

owners and drivers of colliding vehicles and not

where a passenger demands responsibility from the

carrier to enforce its contractual obligations (Tiu v.

Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004).