## Facts

- An eight-year-old child, Minelda Lange, was seriously injured in an accident attributed to Bessie M. Hoyt’s negligence, including a fractured arm and pelvic dislocation.
- Minelda (through a representative) sued for personal injuries; her mother, Minette B. Lange, brought a companion action for consequential damages. The actions were tried together.
- At trial, the defense focused on damages, asserting that Minette removed Minelda from the hospital against medical advice and, due to Christian Science beliefs, refused or delayed certain medical treatment, thereby worsening the child’s condition.
- Minette testified she followed physicians’ instructions and that surgery occurred within the period recommended by the surgeon.
- The defendant requested a specific jury instruction on the duty to use reasonable care to obtain proper medical treatment and avoid aggravating injuries; the court instructed on the subject but did not use the defendant’s proposed language verbatim.
- The jury returned verdicts for both plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed, challenging the adequacy of the instructions and the allocation of the burden of proof on aggravation/mitigation.

## Issues

1. When evidence suggests post-injury medical decisions may have aggravated a plaintiff’s injuries, what jury instruction is required regarding the plaintiff’s duty to use reasonable care to promote recovery?
2. Who bears the burden of proving that damages should be reduced because aggravated injuries were caused by the plaintiff’s (or parent’s) unreasonable failure to obtain or follow medical treatment, and to what extent?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs.
- The trial court’s charge, considered as a whole, sufficiently and correctly stated the rule that an injured plaintiff must use reasonable care to obtain proper medical treatment and cannot recover for additional harm caused solely by an unreasonable failure to do so.
- The trial court was not required to adopt the defendant’s requested instruction in the precise language proposed, so long as the charge fairly presented the applicable law.
- The defendant bears the burden to prove both (i) unreasonable post-injury conduct affecting medical care and (ii) the extent to which that conduct aggravated the injuries and should reduce damages.

## Legal Principles

- A personal-injury plaintiff must exercise reasonable care to promote recovery, including obtaining and following suitable medical or surgical treatment.
- A defendant remains liable for harm proximately caused by the original negligence, but is not liable for incremental harm attributable solely to the plaintiff’s unreasonable post-injury failure to secure proper care.
- Aggravation attributable to a plaintiff’s post-injury conduct is treated as mitigation of damages, not as a complete defense to liability for the original wrong.
- The defendant has the burden to establish how far, if at all, the injury was aggravated by the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct and to show a basis for reducing damages accordingly.
- A trial judge need not use a party’s requested wording if the instructions, read as a whole, accurately state the law and submit the factual questions to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld plaintiff verdicts where the jury was adequately instructed that recovery may be reduced for unreasonable failure to obtain proper medical care, and it reaffirmed that the defendant must prove both the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct and the extent of any resulting aggravation to obtain mitigation of damages.


Lange v. Hoyt, 159 A. 575 (Conn. 1932)