Opinion ID: 1058831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Mitigation Instruction

Text: Monahan further contends the trial court erred in granting a jury instruction on mitigation of damages because the evidence did not support such an instruction. Even if Obici was not required to specifically plead mitigation as we have decided, Monahan asserts there was no evidentiary basis for the mitigation instruction. Monahan contends there is insufficient evidence that Monahan refused any treatment recommended by Wiggins and therefore there is no independent basis upon which the trial court could give a mitigation instruction. We agree with Monahan. Wiggins testified that she gave Monahan a choice to go to the emergency room while at Wakefield or to go home to rest and have his wife take him to the emergency room if his condition worsened. Monahan avers he complied with this instruction by choosing the given alternative of going home, getting into bed and waiting for his wife. Obici responds that there was ample evidence to support the mitigation instruction. Obici cites the testimony of not only Wiggins, but also Monahan's expert witnesses, to support its contention that the jury was required to determine whether Monahan had ignored Wiggins' medical advice and in doing so, failed to minimize his damages. A patient's duty to mitigate damages after receiving negligent medical care is a specific application of the general requirement that: One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent acts of another, whether as the result of a tort or of a breach of contract, is bound to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss or to minimize or lessen the resulting damage, and to the extent that his damages are the result of his active and unreasonable enhancement thereof or are due to his failure to exercise such care and diligence, he cannot recover. Lawrence v. Wirth, 226 Va. 408, 412, 309 S.E.2d 315, 317 (1983) (quoting Haywood v. Massie, 188 Va. 176, 182, 49 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1948)). A mitigation of damages instruction is thus appropriate when the evidence shows that a plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by neglect[ing] his health following his physician's negligent treatment. Sawyer, 264 Va. at 77, 563 S.E.2d at 754 (quoting Lawrence, 226 Va. at 412, 309 S.E.2d at 317). When asked to review jury instructions given by a trial court, our responsibility is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises. Lombard v. Rohrbaugh, 262 Va. 484, 498, 551 S.E.2d 349, 356 (2001) (quoting Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 503, 290 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under well-settled principles, [a] jury instruction may be given only if there is evidence to support the instruction. Pollins v. Jones, 263 Va. 25, 28, 557 S.E.2d 713, 714 (2002) (citing Van Buren v. Simmons, 235 Va. 46, 51, 365 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1988)). The evidence presented in support of a particular instruction `must amount to more than a scintilla.' Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74, 78, 597 S.E.2d 43, 45 (2004) (quoting Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678, 283 S.E.2d 905, 911 (1981)). In the case at bar, the record is insufficient to sustain the mitigation of damages instruction because it does not reflect any act of neglect by Monahan following Wiggins' treatment. Wiggins' testimony clearly reflects that she gave Monahan a choice of either going to the emergency room or going home: Q [Monahan's counsel:] [I]sn't it true that you told Larry that he either needed to go to the emergency room or please tell your wife to take you there if there's any change in the least? A [Wiggins:] Yes. Q[:] So you gave him the option of either going to the emergency department or telling his wife to take him to the emergency department ... isn't that what you told him? A [:] Yes. The uncontradicted evidence shows that Monahan chose one of the options his health care provider, Wiggins, offered to him: he had someone drive him home and went to bed. After his wife arrived home, his condition had worsened, and he was taken to an emergency room, as Wiggins had suggested. Because Wiggins gave Monahan the alternative course of action of either going to the emergency room or going home, and because Monahan complied with that advice by electing to go home, his decision cannot be the basis for a mitigation of damages instruction. Monahan did not act contrary to the advice given to him by his health care provider, but followed one of the courses offered. Therefore, no act of negligence supporting a failure to mitigate damages can be attributed to him based on his following the course of action offered by Wiggins. Obici points to no other evidentiary basis for the instruction. The trial court thus erred in granting Obici's instruction on mitigation of damages, as there was no evidentiary basis to support it. If an issue is erroneously submitted to a jury, we presume that the jury decided the case upon that issue. Clohessy v. Weiler, 250 Va. 249, 254, 462 S.E.2d 94, 97 (1995). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court's error in instructing the jury on the plaintiff's duty to mitigate his damages was harmless. We must presume the jury's consideration of damages was affected by the improperly given mitigation instruction.