Court Opinion

ID: 9565713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:26:24.280591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.782194
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent, first, on the admission of the testimony of Herman A. Walters, clinical psychologist, and second on the failure of respondent to have corrective surgery.
Taking first the testimony of Walters, after careful review, I find it so speculative and so incredible that it should not, in my opinion, *74have been allowed to go to the jury. Reviewing the fact situation here, it should be noted that Walters first appeared on the scene as a witness just two weeks before trial. He had an hour and a half interview with respondent and his wife and one telephone interview. He never treated respondent, nor did he search out competent medical information from the numerous physicians who had been treating him for over two years. His findings of a depressed individual are contra to the competent medical testimony of Dr. Gordon Larson, respondent’s doctor, who had treated him at least seven different times over the two-year period.
Error, in my opinion, was also committed in not properly instructing the jury on respondent’s duty to mitigate damages. The testimony of Drs. Larson and Gates showed respondent had a normal eye, except for the cataract, and that the risk of the operation was low and not painful. Both witnesses indicated that with surgery there was a 95 to 100 percent chance of a return to normal vision:
Montana case law recognizes the general rule that an injured party must use ordinary diligence to effect a cure and thus to mitigate damages. The standard is described variously as “that of the reasonable person” and that of the “reasonably prudent person.” The two are not the same, even though this Court has said that the former is “in other words.” Tiggerman v. City of Butte (1911), 44 Mont. 138, 119 P. 477; Freeman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (1916), 52 Mont. 1, 154 P. 912; Stokes v. Long (1916), 52 Mont. 470, 159 P. 28. See also, White v. Chicago & N. W.Ry. Co., (1910), 145 Iowa 408, 124 N.W. 309; Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. (1913), 132 La. 239, 61 So. 216; Cero v. Oynesando (1927), 48 R.I. 316, 138 A. 45. Cero is an early cataract case before the present day surgical skills where the surgeon testified that the operation would probably be a success. In contrast, the 1978 operation success is from 95 to 99 percent of the time. See also, 62 A.L.R.3d 9 (1975), entitled “Duty of Injured Person to Submit to Surgery to Minimize Tojt Damages.”
I would reverse the decision and send the case back for a new trial.