Jacobs v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. - 432 So. 2d 843 (La. 1983)

Rule:

The law seeks to fully repair injuries which arise from a legal wrong. However, an accident victim has a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care to minimize his damages after the injury has been inflicted. He need not make extraordinary or impractical efforts, but he must undertake those which would be pursued by a man of ordinary prudence under the circumstances. Thus, his recovery will not be limited because of a refusal to undergo medical treatment that holds little promise for successful recovery. The expense and inconvenience of treatment are also proper considerations in determining the reasonableness of a person's refusal to submit to treatment. Moreover, an unreasonable refusal of medical treatment which does not aggravate his injury will not restrict a victim's recovery. The tortfeasor has the burden of showing both the unreasonableness of the victim's refusal of treatment and the consequent aggravation of the injury.

Facts:

This suit arose out of a collision between a New Orleans city bus and an automobile driven by Marlene Jacobs on November 21, 1974. After trial in May 1977, the trial judge found that the accident had rendered Mrs. Jacobs psychologically disabled and awarded her damages totalling $100,000, including an award of $50,000 for loss of earning capacity and an equal amount for pain and disability. The court of appeal reduced the award to $7,500 on the ground that Mrs. Jacobs had failed to plead any psychological disability at trial. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in rejecting a claim for loss of future earnings because it found Mrs. Jacobs had unreasonably failed to undertake continued psychotherapy to mitigate her emotional disorder?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court held that there was no justification for the trial court's determination that Mrs. Jacobs was unreasonable in failing to continue psychiatric treatment or that her failure aggravated her injuries. None of the medical witnesses testified that continued psychiatric treatment would have prevented the deterioration of Mrs. Jacobs' condition or would have enhanced her chances of returning to gainful employment. Rather, Drs. Sanders, Escalada and Palmer each testified that Mrs. Jacobs' condition was permanent as of the first trial. Dr. Sanders further stated at the first trial that he recommended only supportive treatment to help Mrs. Jacobs cope with her permanent disability. Mrs. Jacobs explained to Dr. Sanders that she discontinued treatment in 1977 because of financial problems. The record indicates that Mrs. Jacobs, her husband and daughter reside in a large house with a swimming pool, but her inability to work has left the family totally dependent on her retired husband's monthly social security check of $758. The record indicates that Mrs. Jacobs did not seek psychiatric care from 1977 to 1979, but there is no evidence showing that further psychiatric treatment would have been medically effective or financially possible within the context of Mrs. Jacobs' circumstances. Consequently, the Court concluded that defendant failed to carry its burden of proving that Mrs. Jacobs unreasonably failed to mitigate her damages. The Court also found that no reduction of the award is justified despite the court of appeal's miscalculation of Mrs. Jacobs’ wage loss.