## Facts

- Connie M. Miller drove on a city street when Harold Eichhorn backed from his driveway into the street, and the vehicles collided.
- Connie had no visible injuries immediately after the collision; her primary care physician initially found no problems.
- Connie received chiropractic treatment for about two months, returned for additional chiropractic care months later, and was later involved in two unrelated accidents for which she also received some chiropractic care.
- More than two years after the collision, a physician determined Connie was disabled.
- A jury found total damages of $3,569.70 for Connie, awarded nothing on Keith Miller’s loss-of-consortium claim, and apportioned fault at 15% to Connie and 85% to Harold.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, asserting inadequate damages and instructional error; the trial court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s damages award was so inadequate that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial.
2. Whether the jury could be instructed that an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages constitutes “fault” under Iowa’s Comparative Fault Act and may be compared.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to submit Connie’s comparative fault to the jury and whether refusal of a separate sudden-emergency instruction was reversible error.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment and denial of a new trial.
- The damages award was not so inadequate as to require a new trial given the disputed inferences about injury extent and causation.
- The mitigation instruction was proper because Iowa’s statutory definition of “fault” includes unreasonable failure to avoid injury or to mitigate damages, and the record supported submitting mitigation to the jury.
- Submission of Connie’s comparative fault was supported by evidence (including control/speed in light of conditions).
- Refusal to give a separate sudden-emergency instruction was not prejudicial because the general negligence instructions adequately covered the applicable standard of care.

## Legal Principles

- A jury may reject even uncontradicted testimony if it finds the testimony unreliable or not credible in light of the surrounding circumstances; appellate review of damages is highly deferential.
- Under Iowa Code chapter 668, “fault” includes an unreasonable failure to avoid injury or to mitigate damages; mitigation may be submitted for comparison when supported by substantial evidence.
- Comparative fault issues should be submitted to the jury when the record contains evidence from which reasonable jurors could find plaintiff negligence.
- A sudden-emergency instruction is not required where the general reasonable-care instructions adequately guide the jury and omission does not prejudice the requesting party.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s modest damages award and fault apportionment, ruling that the evidence permitted the jury’s credibility and causation determinations and that Iowa comparative fault law allows an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages to be treated as “fault” for comparative allocation.


Miller v. Eichhorn, 426 N.W.2d 641 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988)