Legal Definitions - lost-chance doctrine

The lost-chance doctrine, also referred to as the loss-of-chance doctrine, is a legal principle that allows a person to seek compensation from another party who, under specific and limited circumstances, failed to provide necessary assistance to someone facing immediate danger of serious harm or death. This doctrine applies when there was a recognized legal duty for the party to act, and their failure to do so significantly reduced the endangered person's chance of avoiding injury or death. It acknowledges that even if the ultimate outcome might have been uncertain, the negligent party's inaction deprived the victim of a better chance.

• Example 1: Lifeguard's Negligence

  A trained lifeguard, employed by a community pool, is assigned to monitor swimmers. During their shift, a child begins to struggle visibly in the deep end, showing clear signs of distress and imminent danger of drowning. The lifeguard, distracted by a conversation with a colleague, fails to notice the child for several critical minutes. By the time another patron alerts the lifeguard, the child has suffered severe oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent brain damage.

  Explanation: The lifeguard had a professional duty to monitor and rescue swimmers. Their failure to act promptly when the child was in imminent danger of drowning reduced the child's chance of avoiding severe brain damage. The lost-chance doctrine would allow a claim for the lost opportunity of a better outcome due to this inaction, even if it couldn't be proven with absolute certainty that the child would have been unharmed had the lifeguard acted immediately.

• Example 2: Security Guard's Delayed Response

  At a large public event, a security guard is stationed in a specific zone with a clear duty to maintain order and respond to emergencies. A violent altercation breaks out in their immediate vicinity, and one attendee is being severely beaten, facing imminent danger of serious physical injury. The security guard observes the situation but hesitates for an extended period, failing to intervene or call for immediate backup, due to fear or indifference. The victim sustains much more extensive injuries than they would have if the guard had acted promptly.

  Explanation: The security guard had a professional duty to protect attendees in their assigned area. By delaying intervention when a person was in imminent danger of assault, the guard reduced the victim's chance of avoiding more severe injuries. This scenario illustrates how the doctrine can apply when a professional duty to protect is breached, and the inaction leads to a lost chance for a better outcome.

• Example 3: Caregiver's Inaction in a Nursing Home

  An elderly resident in a nursing home, known to have swallowing difficulties, begins to choke on food during dinner. A staff member, who is responsible for supervising residents during meals and is trained in emergency procedures, witnesses the resident's distress and signs of imminent danger. However, the staff member delays responding, hoping another colleague will step in, or simply freezes. This delay significantly reduces the resident's chance of clearing their airway without severe complications, leading to a more serious medical event and prolonged hospitalization.

  Explanation: The nursing home staff member had a professional duty to care for residents, including responding to medical emergencies. Their delayed response to the choking resident, who was in imminent danger, reduced the resident's chance of a less severe outcome. The lost-chance doctrine would allow a claim based on the reduction of this chance due to the staff member's negligent inaction.