What is Georgia's last clear chance rule under its comparative negligence laws?

Nothing in this post constitutes legal advice. Georgia generally applies a modified comparative negligence approach in apportioning fault in negligence actions. A plaintiff can recover his damages from a negligent defendant discounted by the plaintiff's percentage of fault; however, when the plaintiff's fault is greater than the defendant's the plaintiff cannot recover. So, where a plaintiff's injuries amount to $100,000, and the plaintiff is found to be 30% At Fault and the defendant 70%, the plaintiff can recover in the amount of $70,000. If the plaintiff were 51% at fault and the defendant 49%, the plaintiff would recover nothing. Although Last Clear Chance is a doctrine more commonly associated with contributory negligence jurisdictions (where any negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a complete bar to recovery), Georgia preserves it and applies it both to the plaintiff and the defendant. Notwithstanding the comparative negligence rule discussed above, if a plaintiff, through the exercise of reasonable care, could have avoided the consequences of the defendant's prior negligence but failed to do so, he will be completely barred from recovery, regardless of the defendant's percentage of fault. Conversely, even though a plaintiff's negligence contributes to the incident, if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid harm, but failed to do so because he did not exercise reasonable care, the defendant can be held liable to the full extent of plaintiff's damages (i.e., not discounted for plaintiff's degree of fault).