Jacobs v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
1983 La. LEXIS 10724, 432 So. 2d 843 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An injured party has a duty to mitigate damages by exercising reasonable care, but the tortfeasor bears the burden of proving that the victim's refusal of medical treatment was both unreasonable under the circumstances and that the refusal aggravated the injury.

Facts:

On November 21, 1974, a city bus operated by New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI) collided with an automobile driven by Marlene Jacobs.
As a result of the collision, Jacobs developed a permanent psychological disability, diagnosed by multiple psychiatrists as anxiety neurosis caused by the accident.
Jacobs discontinued her psychiatric treatment in 1977.
Jacobs stated she stopped treatment due to financial problems, as her family's sole income was her retired husband's $758 monthly social security check.
Medical experts testified that Jacobs's condition was permanent and that her prospects for recovery were dim.
No medical witness testified that continued psychiatric treatment would have prevented the deterioration of Jacobs's condition or improved her ability to return to work.

Procedural Posture:

Marlene Jacobs sued New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI) in a Louisiana state trial court for injuries from a vehicle collision.
The trial court found Jacobs psychologically disabled from the accident and awarded her $100,000.
NOPSI, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which reduced the award to $7,500.
Jacobs, as appellant, sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court, which reversed the court of appeal and remanded the case.
On remand, the trial court heard additional evidence and reinstated its original $100,000 award, denying damages for future wage loss.
Jacobs, as appellant, appealed again to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which amended the judgment to add $158,471 for lost future wages.
NOPSI, as appellant, sought review of the increased award from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

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 an injured person's failure to continue psychiatric treatment constitute an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages when the tortfeasor fails to prove that the treatment would have been medically effective or that the refusal aggravated the injury?

Opinions:

Majority - Dennis, J.

No. A victim's recovery will not be limited for failure to mitigate damages unless the tortfeasor proves the victim's refusal of treatment was unreasonable and aggravated the injury. An accident victim must exercise reasonable diligence to minimize damages but is not required to make extraordinary or impractical efforts. The reasonableness of refusing treatment is determined by considering factors like the treatment's expense, inconvenience, and likelihood of success. Here, NOPSI failed to carry its burden. There was no evidence that continued psychiatric treatment would have been medically effective. Furthermore, given Jacobs's financial circumstances, the court could not conclude that her failure to continue treatment was unreasonable. Therefore, she is entitled to damages for her lost future wages.

Dissenting - Lemmon, J.

The dissent does not address the mitigation of damages issue. Instead, it argues that the appellate court's initial decision to deny damages for psychological disability was correct. The dissent's reasoning is that the psychiatric testimony in the first trial was only introduced to justify Jacobs's refusal of a myelogram for a back injury, not to support a separate claim for a psychological disability caused by the accident.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that the duty to mitigate damages is limited by a standard of reasonableness, protecting injured plaintiffs from being penalized for declining treatments that are financially burdensome, inconvenient, or have a low probability of success. It places a significant evidentiary burden on the defendant, requiring them to prove not only that the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable but also that it directly caused an aggravation of the injuries. This precedent makes it more difficult for tortfeasors to reduce damage awards by second-guessing the medical decisions of injured parties, especially when those decisions are influenced by practical and financial realities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jacobs v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature