Greenwood v. Mitchell
621 N.W.2d 200, 2001 WL 40308, 2001 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 12 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant asserting the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages must present substantial evidence, including expert testimony when the issue involves medical causation, to establish that the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable and that it caused an identifiable portion of the plaintiff's damages.
Facts:
- On December 12, 1995, a vehicle driven by Jason Mitchell struck Dale Greenwood on a sidewalk, causing injuries to Greenwood's right arm, shoulder, and left leg.
- After conservative treatment was unsuccessful, Greenwood underwent shoulder surgery on May 10, 1996, upon the recommendation of his orthopedist, Dr. Robert Breedlove.
- In June 1996, a physical therapist released Greenwood from formal treatment and advised him to continue with a home exercise program.
- Greenwood testified that he performed the home exercises for a period but eventually stopped because he felt they were not helping.
- In June 1997, Greenwood sought reevaluation for his shoulder, complaining of continued discomfort that had worsened over the previous six months, particularly after performing push-ups as part of his duties with the Iowa National Guard.
- A second physical therapist, Thomas Bower, noted that Greenwood's shoulder had become inflamed again and gave him new exercises, stating he was 'hopeful' they would reduce the pain.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale Greenwood filed a lawsuit against Jason Mitchell in an Iowa district court (trial court) for personal injuries.
- At trial, the defendant Mitchell admitted fault for causing the accident but disputed that it was the proximate cause of Greenwood's injuries.
- Over Greenwood's objection, the trial court submitted a jury instruction on the defense of failure to mitigate damages.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Greenwood 60% at fault and Mitchell 40% at fault, which barred Greenwood from any recovery under Iowa's comparative fault statute.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, Mitchell.
- Greenwood's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Greenwood, as appellant, appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant present sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on a plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages by showing the plaintiff discontinued a home exercise program, without offering expert testimony that this conduct was unreasonable and was a proximate cause of additional or aggravated injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Ternus, Justice.
No. To support a claim for failure to mitigate damages, a defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff acted unreasonably and that this unreasonable conduct caused a portion of the damages. When medical causation is at issue, the defendant must provide expert testimony to establish a causal link between the plaintiff's inaction and the resulting harm, just as a plaintiff must provide expert testimony to prove the defendant's conduct caused the initial injury. Here, Mitchell failed to present expert testimony establishing that Greenwood's discontinuation of his home exercise program was unreasonable or that it proximately caused any of his subsequent damages. The therapist's statement about being 'hopeful' that exercises would help was too speculative to prove causation. Therefore, the trial court erred by submitting the failure-to-mitigate instruction to the jury, as it allowed the jury to speculate on medical causation without sufficient evidentiary support.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements for the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages in personal injury cases. By requiring expert testimony on the issue of medical causation, the court elevates the defendant's burden of proof, making it more difficult to shift fault to the plaintiff for post-injury conduct. This holding protects injured plaintiffs from having their recovery barred or reduced based on speculation about their recovery choices. The ruling also provides important guidance on trial procedure, suggesting the use of separate verdict forms to apportion damages between those caused solely by the defendant's negligence and those potentially aggravated by the plaintiff's later failure to mitigate, ensuring a more equitable outcome.
