THE RULE OF LAST OPPORTUNITY

 The doctrine of last opportunity, also known as the "last clear chance
doctrine," is a legal principle that is used to determine liability in
personal injury cases. The doctrine states that if a plainti ff was in a
positi on of danger due to their own negligence, but the defendant had a
last opportunity to avoid the harm and failed to do so, then the defendant
may be held liable for the plainti ff 's injuries.
 The evoluti on of this doctrine can be traced back to English common law,
where the concept of contributory negligence was initi ally used to
determine liability in personal injury cases. Contributory negligence
meant that if the plainti ff was even slightly at fault for their own injuries,
then they would not be able to recover damages from the defendant.
 However, the harshness of this rule led to the development of the
doctrine of last opportunity in the United States in the late 19th century.
This doctrine was seen as a fairer way to apporti on liability, as it allowed
plainti ff s who were parti ally at fault for their own injuries to sti ll recover
damages if the defendant had a last opportunity to avoid the harm.
 Over ti me, the doctrine of last opportunity has been refi ned and modifi ed
in different jurisdicti ons. In some states, it has been replaced by
comparati ve negligence, which allows damages to be apporti oned based
on the percentage of fault of each party involved. In other states, the
doctrine of last opportunity is sti ll used to determine liability in personal
injury cases.

Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Last Opportunity

 The Doctrine of Last Opportunity is a legal principle that is oft en invoked

in cases where a party has failed to perform their obligati ons under a
contract or agreement. The principle essenti ally states that a party who
has been given a fi nal opportunity to perform their obligati ons but fails to
do so will be deemed to have breached the contract, and the other party
will be enti tled to terminate the agreement.
 From a legal perspecti ve, the Doctrine of Last Opportunity can be useful
in cases where a party has no intenti on of fulfi lling their obligati ons
under a contract. By giving the party a fi nal chance to perform, it provides
 them with a clear indicati on of the seriousness of the situati on and the
consequences of their conti nued non-compliance.
 However, there are also criti cisms of the Doctrine of Last Opportunity.
Some argue that it can be unfair to the party who has failed to perform,
as it places a signifi cant amount of pressure on them to comply with their
obligati ons in a very short ti meframe. Additi onally, there is a risk that the
doctrine may be used to unfairly terminate contracts or agreements,
parti cularly in cases where the other party is seeking to gain an
advantage.
 Ulti mately, the effecti veness and appropriateness of the Doctrine of Last
Opportunity will depend on the specifi c circumstances of the case in
questi on. While it can be a useful tool in certain situati ons, it is important
to ensure that it is applied fairly and appropriately, considering the
interests of all parti es involved.

Evolution of The Rule Of Last Opportunity

 The last opportunity rule was fi rst found menti oned in Davies vs Mann . It
was path-breaking in its a soft ened approach to the plainti ff ’s claim
Contributory negligence also being rather a recent concept, the precedent
in Davies vs Mann gave a logical context to the concept only loosely put
by previous judgments negati ng the defence of contributory negligence.
 In Davies v Mann , [1]it was made clear that if the plainti ff ’s alleged
contributory negligence was a remote, rather than the proximate cause of
the accident, only then the rule applies. [2]It is also clear that in the last
deciding moment of the accident where only the defendant could prevent
it and the situati on was out of the plainti ff ’s hands, the rule would apply
and know that another ship was in their way, and despite that, they did
nothing to prevent the collision. It was held that the plainti ff ’s negligence
of not maintaining a lookout, was not a direct cause of the collision. The
one who persists despite being fully aware of the danger is held liable
over the one who was negligently unaware of the danger, in cases where
the apporti onment of liability is complex .

Application In Indian Jurisdiction

 Jang Bahadur Singh vs Sunder Lal Mandal and Or ’s. – The plainti ff was the
owner of a horse and was standing on the left side of the road with the
horse to his left , close to a ditch. When the bus driver, the defendant in
this case, was driving at a rash speed on the wrong side of the road. The
last opportunity rule was applied in this case along with several other
principles. The defendant had the last opportunity to prevent the
collision, apart from which the plainti ff was not able to move further left
because he was standing by a ditch. The Patna High court upheld the
decision of the subordinate court.
 Brij Mohan Sahni vs Mohinder Kumar – in this case, two motorcycles
belonging to the plainti ff and the defendant collided. The defendant’s
vehicle was exiti ng the circus, when the plainti ff was coming from a
smaller road joining the road where the collision. The defendant took a
wrong turn. Essenti ally, the court emphasized the obsolescence of the last
opportunity rule. Winfi eld’s opinion on the last opportunity rule was
quoted as calling it illogical. Lord Denning ’s remarks were quoted from
another case Jones v. Livox Quarries where he was quoted as saying that
despite the irrelevance of the last opportunity doctrine, the problem of
determining causati on remains. In the above case, it was decided that the
defendant was negligent and the use of the doctrine in questi on does not
arise.
 Indian jurisprudence seems to follow in the footsteps of its English
counterpart in rejecti ng the doctrine.

Conclusion
 However, the effecti veness of the rule of last opportunity depends on the
willingness of the parti es to engage in good-faith sett lement negoti ati ons.
If one party is unwilling to negoti ate or makes unrealisti c demands, the
rule may be of limited value. Additi onally, the rule may not be
appropriate in all cases, parti cularly where one party has a strong legal
positi on or where there are signifi cant factual disputes that cannot be
easily resolved through negoti ati on.
 Overall, while the rule of last opportunity can be a useful tool for
resolving disputes, it is not a panacea, and its effecti veness will depend
on the specifi c circumstances of each case.
 LAW OF TORTS
ASSIGNMENT

THE RULE OF LAST OPPORTUNITY

NAME: ASHWANI KUMAR

ROLL NO: 2100570006
SECTION: 2/5