This report recommends that the Contributory Negligence Act (CNA) be amended to abolish the common-law rule known as the “last clear chance” rule. The “last clear chance” rule applied where both the contributory negligence of a plaintiff and the fault of a defendant caused loss to the plaintiff and where one of the them had a “last clear chance” to avoid the effect of the other’s fault and failed to do so. If the defendant was the one who had had the “last clear chance” the plaintiff could recover damages for the whole of their loss despite their contributory negligence. If the plaintiff was the one who had had the “last clear chance” the plaintiff could not recover any damages despite the defendant’s fault. Sections 6 and 7 of the CNA imply that the “last clear chance” rule still applies if the Act or omission of the party who had the “last clear chance” was not substantially contemporaneous with the Act or omission of the other party. There are four reasons for the abolition of the “last clear chance” concept. First, the CNA’s fault apportionment rule is much fairer. Second, it is unnecessary and misleading because the common law rule that only a “proximate” cause leads to legal responsibility deals exhaustively and adequately with questions of causation. Third, the “last clear chance” rule confuses the law with no countervailing benefit. Fourth, the Court of Appeal in the Wickberg case, referred to in this report, also suggested that this rule be amended.