Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court held that a party seeking a jury instruction on failure to mitigate damages need provide only some evidence, or a scintilla, supporting each element of the defense. The court concluded that evidence Humphrey failed to follow medical advice and fill an eyeglasses prescription was sufficient to support the instruction, although the defendants ultimately bore the preponderance-of-the-evidence burden to establish the defense. The court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What quantum of evidence is required to support a jury instruction on a failure-to-mitigate-damages defense?
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving the failure-to-mitigate-damages instruction based on evidence that Humphrey did not follow medical advice and did not obtain prescribed eyeglasses.
Holdings
- A party seeking a jury instruction need produce only some evidence, or a scintilla of evidence, supporting each element of the claim or defense.
- To prevail on a failure-to-mitigate-damages defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care to mitigate post-injury damages and that this failure caused identifiable harm beyond that attributable to the defendant's negligence.
- Expert medical testimony is not always required to support a failure-to-mitigate-damages instruction; whether the instruction is warranted must be decided case by case.
- The evidence was sufficient to support instructing the jury on failure to mitigate damages, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Key quotations
“The amount of evidence necessary for a court to instruct a jury on a mitigation-of-damages defense is minimal, requiring only a “scintilla”.” (at 1)
“Thus, under Indiana law, the party seeking an instruction need only produce some evidence—a “scintilla”—of each element of the underlying claim or defense.” (at 5)
“No more is required to instruct the jury.” (at 8)
Factual background
While Humphrey was driving through Indiana, a tractor-trailer driven by Brian Tuck and operated by US Xpress sideswiped Humphrey's rental car, causing Humphrey to hit his head. Humphrey later experienced eye problems and was diagnosed with a pituitary tumor and pituitary apoplexy, for which he underwent surgery. He subsequently received prescriptions and medical advice concerning vision problems and hormonal symptoms, but did not fill an eyeglasses prescription, stopped taking bromocriptine because of nausea, failed to follow up promptly for an alternative medication, and delayed beginning testosterone injections. Liability was admitted, so the trial concerned only damages and whether Humphrey failed to mitigate them.
Procedural history
After Tuck and US Xpress admitted liability for the vehicle accident, the case proceeded to trial solely on damages. The trial court gave a failure-to-mitigate-damages instruction, and the jury awarded Humphrey $40,000. The trial court denied Humphrey's motion to correct error. The Court of Appeals reversed because it found insufficient evidence of the causation element of the mitigation defense and ordered a new damages trial. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court's judgment.