Legal Definitions - distraction doctrine

The distraction doctrine is a legal principle that can prevent a person from being held partially responsible for their own injury (a concept known as contributory negligence) if their attention was diverted from a known danger by a compelling or reasonable cause. In simpler terms, if someone is injured because their focus was legitimately pulled away from a hazard they were aware of, they might not be considered at fault for contributing to their own harm.

Here are some examples illustrating the distraction doctrine:

• Imagine a customer at a hardware store who notices a "Caution: Wet Floor" sign near a spill. As they carefully walk around the wet area, a stack of boxes unexpectedly topples over in an adjacent aisle with a loud crash. The customer instinctively turns their head to look at the commotion, momentarily diverting their gaze from the wet floor, and then slips and falls, injuring themselves.

  How this illustrates the doctrine: The customer was aware of the known danger (the wet floor). However, their attention was diverted by a "sufficient cause" – the sudden, loud noise and falling boxes, which is a reasonable and instinctive reason to look away. Under the distraction doctrine, the customer might not be found contributorily negligent for their fall, even though they knew the floor was wet, because the distraction was compelling and involuntary.

• Consider a pedestrian walking on a city sidewalk that has a clearly visible, uneven section they usually navigate carefully. Suddenly, a small child on a scooter veers sharply and rapidly towards them from a side path, causing the pedestrian to quickly look up and step aside to avoid a collision. In that brief moment of distraction, they trip over the uneven sidewalk and sprain their ankle.

  How this illustrates the doctrine: The pedestrian knew about the danger (the uneven sidewalk). Their attention was diverted by the sudden and unexpected approach of a child, which is a reasonable and necessary reaction to prevent another accident. The distraction doctrine could apply here, arguing that the pedestrian's momentary distraction, caused by a compelling need to avoid another hazard, should prevent them from being solely blamed for their injury due to contributory negligence.