Munn v. S. Health Plan, Inc. - 719 F. Supp. 525 (N.D. Miss. 1989)

Rule:

The doctrine of avoidable consequences, sometimes referred to as the duty of the plaintiff to mitigate damages, functions as a negative rule, denying an injured person recovery of damages for any reasonably avoidable consequences of the injury. The basic rule is that the plaintiff may not recover from the defendant for injuries which flow from the defendant's wrongful conduct but which could have been avoided by the plaintiff's availing herself of reasonable measures to limit the harm. Simply stated, once the injury has occurred, the plaintiff may not stand idly by and allow her damages to accumulate when she could take reasonable steps to minimize them.

Facts:

The negligence of defendant led to an automobile collision with the plaintiff widower and his wife, in which the wife sustained severe injuries and died two hours after refusing a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs. The plaintiff widower brought a wrongful death action. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, raising, among others, the doctrine of avoidable consequences in contending that she was not liable for damages for the wife’s death. According to the defendant, if the jury should find that she was not liable for damages for the wife’s death, then the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for any prospective harm beyond the point of the wife’s death. 

Issue:

Should the court apply the doctrine of avoidable consequences in determining whether or not defendant may be held liable for the death of the wife? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court found that the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk were not applicable because the defendant did not have a duty in relation to the transfusion. The court held that the doctrine of avoidable consequences was the appropriate standard to be applied and that its application did not violate the plaintiff widower's U.S. Const. amend. I rights. The court held that the question of whether the wife would have lived if she had not received the transfusion was a question for the jury in which they could consider the fact that her refusal was based on her religious beliefs. The court determined that the plaintiff widower could not recover for any hypothetical injuries, which never occurred because of the wife's death if the jury should find that the refusal of the transfusion was unreasonable nor could the widower recover for the harm suffered as a result of her death. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in part.