Opinion ID: 2332538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Comparative Negligence and Mitigation of Damages

Text: [¶ 20] Wal-Mart argues that Walter's motion for judgment on liability should have been denied because Wal-Mart raised the defense of comparative negligence and it was entitled to have the jury decide whether Walter was negligent. Wal-Mart claims that Walter should have realized that the drug name on the medicine container did not match the medication that she had discussed with Dr. Ross. Wal-Mart also argues that Walter was negligent when she did not contact Dr. Ross immediately upon noticing the rash and bruising. [¶ 21] Under Maine's comparative negligence statute, the damages owing to a plaintiff may be reduced when the plaintiff's harm is partly the result of the plaintiff's own fault, and fault is defined as the negligence that would give rise to the defense of contributory negligence. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 (1980). If the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than that of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover damages. See id.
[¶ 22] Turning first to Wal-Mart's contention that Walter was contributorily negligent in failing to discover that she had been given the wrong medication, we conclude that a jury, acting rationally, on this evidence could not find that she was negligent. Lovin testified that Walter would have no way of knowing that she had been given the wrong medication, and there was no evidence that Walter should have been expected to discover Wal-Mart's negligence. [5] Thus, it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury on comparative negligence concerning Walter's failure to discover Wal-Mart's error.
[¶ 23] Wal-Mart claims that Walter's delay in calling her doctor to report the skin rash and bruising was negligence on her part that contributed to her suffering. Walter contends that any inaction on her part goes to mitigation of damages and not comparative negligence. [¶ 24] Traditionally, one of the distinctions between contributory negligence and the doctrine of mitigation of damages, or avoidable consequences, has been a temporal one. Contributory negligence is generally unreasonable behavior by a plaintiff before or concurrent with the injury imposed by the defendant, whereas the avoidable consequences doctrine is applied to plaintiff's action or inaction after the defendant's negligent act. See W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 65, at 458 (5th ed.1984). For example, we have said that contributory negligence is negligence by a plaintiff that unites with the negligence of the defendant to make the damage the direct result of both the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. See Wells v. Sears, 136 Me. 160, 164, 4 A.2d 680, 682 (1939). We have also stated that contributory negligence has to antedate or be concurrent with the defendant's negligence. See Crosby v. Plummer, 111 Me. 355, 357, 89 A. 145, 146 (1913). When the plaintiff commits negligence after the defendant's negligence or fails to take steps to avoid the consequences of defendant's negligence, the amount of damages may be affected, but not the plaintiff's right of recovery. See Isenman v. Burnell, 125 Me. 57, 61, 130 A. 868, 870 (1925). [¶ 25] A classic application of the avoidable consequences doctrine is made when the plaintiff fails to seek medical treatment after being injured by the defendant. See Michaud v. Steckino, 390 A.2d 524, 531 (Me.1978); JACK H. SIMMONS ET AL., MAINE TORT LAW § 19.01, at 667 (1999). In medical malpractice actions in Maine, however, we have held that if a plaintiff's failure to follow the reasonable instructions of the defendant doctor directly contributes to the plaintiff's damages, the plaintiffs contributory negligence will bar recovery. See Merrill v. Odiorne, 113 Me. 424, 425, 94 A. 753, 753-54 (1915); see also Harvey v. Mid-Coast Hosp., 36 F.Supp.2d 32, 37 (D.Me.1999) (discussing Maine medical malpractice cases). This seems to be contrary to the majority rule. See Durphy v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 698 A.2d 459, 467 (D.C. 1997) (The majority of courts appear to hold that contributory negligence for a patient's noncompliance with medical treatment decisions will bar recovery completely only if the patient's negligent acts are contemporaneous with the physician's negligent acts.). [6] Under the comparative negligence statute, we approved, without discussion, a jury instruction on comparative negligence when the plaintiff failed to keep a follow-up appointment with the defendant doctor. See Hauser v. Bhatnager, 537 A.2d 599, 601 (Me.1988). [¶ 26] Although it is tempting to fully examine the rationale for applying comparative negligence as opposed to the doctrines of mitigation or avoidable consequences, we need not do so in this case. That is because, for this case, the end result is the same. Courts and commentators have discussed the similarity between applying contributory or comparative negligence and applying the doctrine of avoidable consequences. See Ostrowski v. Azzara, 111 N.J. 429, 545 A.2d 148, 153-54 (1988) (warning against allowing the various aspects of tort doctrine to do double duty); KEETON, supra at 459. Both allow a jury to reduce the plaintiff's damages or return a verdict for the defendant if the jury finds that the plaintiff was negligent or failed to mitigate or avoid consequences. [¶ 27] One principle that ought to be plain is that a defendant is not entitled to a double reduction of damages; that is, the same action or inaction of the plaintiff that justifies a comparative negligence instruction should not also authorize a reduction of damages under the doctrine of mitigation or avoidable consequences. The fact that Walter did not call her doctor as soon as she discovered the bruising and skin rash ought not to lower damages by apportioning fault under the comparative damages statute and be used again by a factfinder to reduce damages because Walter failed to avoid the consequences of Wal-Mart's negligence. The jury should not be instructed on both comparative negligence and mitigation of damages for the same act of the plaintiff. The major difference between the two instructions is that the jury is told in the comparative negligence instruction that if the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's fault, the plaintiff recovers nothing. [7] It is possible that with a mitigation instruction a jury could return a verdict for the defendant by finding that failure to avoid the consequences was so substantial that the damages should be reduced to nothing. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 918, cmt. b (1979) (noting that a person who fails to avert the consequences of a tort, which he could do with slight effort is entitled to no damages). The jury, however, should not be so instructed unless the facts warrant. In this case there were not sufficient facts from which a jury could find that Walter's inaction was so substantial as to allow a verdict for the defendant. [¶ 28] The jury was instructed on mitigation and told that every person who is injured has a duty to exercise reasonable care to reduce the extent of the injuries and to take reasonable and prudent steps to effect a cure or reduce the severity of the injury. Although the words fault or negligence are not used in the mitigation instruction, the practical effect is the same as though the words were used because of the reasonableness standard that the jury is told to apply. The factors determining whether an injured person has used care to avert the consequences of a tort are in general the same as those that determine whether a person has been guilty of negligent conduct.... RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 918, cmt. c (1979). [¶ 29] With regard to the bruising and skin rash, the evidence is that the bruising appeared only a few days before Walter attempted to reach Dr. Ross. There is no evidence that if the bruising and skin rash been reported to Dr. Ross earlier, treatment could have been given immediately that would have reversed the effects of the wrong medicine. At best, the jury could infer that Dr. Ross would have stopped the medication a few days earlier and perhaps the effects of the wrong medication may have been lessened. A jury, acting rationally, could not have concluded that the negligence of Walter was equal to or greater than Wal-Mart's negligence. Because the jury was fully instructed on mitigation of damages and because the only rational effect of a comparative negligence instruction would have duplicated a mitigation instruction, there was no harm or prejudice to Wal-Mart by the court's refusal to give a comparative negligence instruction and directing a verdict for Walter on liability.
[¶ 30] Although Wal-Mart has not argued that Walter's delay in obtaining the blood test was negligence, the same reasoning applies to the blood test as to the failure to report immediately the bruising and skin rash. Wal-Mart's expert testified that Walter could not be blamed for waiting twenty-three days for the blood test because she did not know the significance of a blood test. He testified that only if a patient is given a specific appointment for the blood test, which Walter was not, and then failed to keep that appointment could she be faulted. Dr. Ross did not tell Walter the importance of the blood test. Walter should not and could not be expected to know the medical significance of the blood test. Thus, not only was there no evidence from which the jury could find that Walter was negligent in this regard, no jury, acting rationally, could conclude that a delay in obtaining the blood test was negligence equal to or greater than Wal-Mart's negligence. That being so, the only possibility left to a jury was a reduction in damages, and the mitigation instruction fully gave the jury the ability to reduce damages.