We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Understanding the Subsequent-Negligence Doctrine in Tort Law
Definition & Meaning
The subsequent-negligence doctrine is a legal principle in tort law that allows a person, who may have acted negligently, to still recover damages from another party if that party had the last clear opportunity to prevent the injury. This doctrine is often referred to as the last-clear-chance doctrine. It recognizes that even if a plaintiff contributed to the accident, they may still be entitled to compensation if the defendant could have avoided the harm but failed to do so.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
This doctrine is primarily used in civil law cases, particularly those involving personal injury claims. It applies when both the plaintiff and defendant have acted negligently. The subsequent-negligence doctrine emphasizes the responsibility of the defendant to act when they have the opportunity to prevent harm. Users may find legal forms related to negligence claims on platforms like US Legal Forms, which provide templates for filing claims or responses in court.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: A pedestrian crosses the street without looking and is struck by a car. If the driver had a clear opportunity to stop but failed to do so, the pedestrian may be able to recover damages under the subsequent-negligence doctrine.
(Hypothetical example) Example 2: A cyclist rides through a red light and collides with a vehicle. If the driver of the vehicle saw the cyclist and had time to brake but didn't, the cyclist might still claim damages based on subsequent negligence.
Relevant laws & statutes
Major case law relevant to the subsequent-negligence doctrine includes:
Agranowitz v. Levine, 298 Mich. 18 (Mich. 1941) - This case established the requirements for applying the doctrine.
Leemon v. Leemon, 56 Mich. App. 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974) - This case clarified that if the plaintiff's negligence was concurrent with the defendant's, recovery under the doctrine is not possible.
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Application of Doctrine
Michigan
Recognizes the subsequent-negligence doctrine as established in Agranowitz v. Levine.
California
Similar principles apply, but specific case law may differ.
Texas
Utilizes comparative negligence, which may affect the application of the doctrine.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Difference
Contributory negligence
A legal doctrine that prevents a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found to be at fault.
Subsequent negligence allows recovery despite some fault, if the defendant had the last chance to avoid harm.
Comparative negligence
A system that reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover based on their percentage of fault.
Subsequent negligence focuses on the defendant's failure to act, rather than apportioning fault.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you believe the subsequent-negligence doctrine applies to your situation, consider the following steps:
Document the details of the accident, including any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and options.
Explore US Legal Forms for templates that can help you file a claim or response in court.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.