Patrick Humphrey v. Brian Tuck, US Xpress, Inc., 151 N.E.3d 1203

Humphrey’s rental car was sideswiped by a tractor-trailer driven by Tuck; Tuck admitted fault. Humphrey initially denied injury and continued traveling.
After worsening eye symptoms, Humphrey discovered a pituitary tumor and was diagnosed with a pituitary apoplexy; he underwent neurosurgery to remove the tumor.
An endocrinologist prescribed bromocriptine to address elevated prolactin and related low-testosterone symptoms; Humphrey delayed filling the prescription, discontinued it due to nausea, and failed to timely follow up for alternatives; he later began testosterone injections after a substantial delay and reported improvement.
Defendants conceded liability and contested only damages, asserting Humphrey failed to mitigate by not filling eyeglass prescriptions and by not following medical advice promptly.
Trial court gave a jury instruction on failure to mitigate damages; the jury awarded $40,000. The court of appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence of causation for the mitigation defense and ordered a new trial on damages.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and held that the minimal evidentiary threshold for instructing the jury (a scintilla/any evidence) was satisfied; it affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence to give a jury instruction on failure to mitigate damages	Humphrey: no evidence that his post-accident failures caused any discrete, identifiable, or quantifiable additional harm	Tuck/US Xpress: evidence that failing to fill eyeglasses and not following/continuing medical treatment aggravated or prolonged symptoms	Court: jury instruction proper — only a scintilla/"any evidence" of each element required to submit instruction
What standard governs (for giving instruction vs. proving defense at trial)	Humphrey: argued that causation required more (expert testimony/quantification) before instructing jury	Defendants: instruction may be given on lay evidence where causation is within common experience; proving defense at trial still requires preponderance	Court: instructing requires only some/scintilla of evidence; to prevail at trial defendants must prove both elements by preponderance; expert testimony not always required; case-by-case analysis

Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179 (defines two-element mitigation defense and preponderance burden to prove it)
Hernandez v. State, 45 N.E.3d 373 (a "scintilla" or some evidence suffices to require a jury instruction)
Lavengood v. Lavengood, 73 N.E.2d 685 (party entitled to instruction where there is any evidence fairly tending to support it)
Reed v. State, 40 N.E. 525 (even meager facts or "any" circumstances can require submission to the jury)
Sims v. Huntington, 393 N.E.2d 135 (instruction may be refused only when none of the facts would support the theory)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (standards of review for jury instructions)
Humphrey v. Tuck, 132 N.E.3d 512 (Court of Appeals decision reversing on mitigation-instruction grounds)