- Home
- All Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- What is Personal Injury?
- Personal Injury Statute of Limitations
- Can I Handle My Own Case?
- How Personal Injury Claims Work
- How Our Attorneys Can Help
- Denied Insurance Claims
- Personal Injury Damages
- Premises Liability
- What To Expect After Filing a Claim
- Types of Personal Injury
- Burn Injuries
- What is a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
- Why Do I Need an Attorney?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Mediating a Personal Injury Case
- The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
- San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers
- Preponderance of Evidence
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorneys
- Proving Proximate Cause
- San Antonio Law Firms
- The Thin Skull Rule
- San Antonio Injury Lawyer
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- San Antonio Injury Law Firm
- Vicarious Liability
- Personal Injury Attorneys in San Antonio
- Subrogation
- Personal Injury Lawyers in San Antonio
- San Antonio Injury Lawyers
- Wrongful Death
- Texas Wrongful Death Law Explained
- Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations
- The Benefits of a Wrongful Death Attorney
- Auto Accident Wrongful Death
- Semi Truck Accident Wrongful Death
- Wrongful Deaths on the Job
- Construction Accident Wrongful Death
- Loss of Future Earnings Compensation
- Texas Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Big Rig Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Attorney
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents
- 18-Wheeler Accident Litigation
- Truck Accident Claims
- Insurance Company Tactics
- Fatal Big Rig Accidents
- Dump Truck Accidents
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Falling Cargo Accidents
- Causes of 18-Wheeler Accidents
- San Antonio 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Truck Accident Lawyers
- San Antonio Truck Accident Attorney
- Unsafe Trucking Practices
- Legal Opposition You Will Face
- Don't Damage Your Case
- Tractor Trailer Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Lawyer
- San Antonio Truck Accident Firm
- Automobile Accidents
- San Antonio Auto Accident Lawyer
- Common Car Accident Injuries
- How To File an Accident Injury Claim
- San Antonio Car Accident Lawyer
- Child Injuries in a Car Accident
- Passenger Injuries
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance
- Proportionate Responsibility
- Tire Defect Accidents
- Rollover Accidents
- The Benefit of Hiring An Attorney
- Challenges Recovering Compensation
- Auto Accident Attorney in San Antonio
- San Antonio Accident Injury Lawyer
- The Legal Opposition You Will Face
- Uninsured Motorist Accidents
- San Antonio Accident Attorney
- What To Do After an Accident
- San Antonio Car Wreck Lawyer
- Work Related Accidents
- Construction Accidents
- Drunk Driver Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Dangerous & Defective Products
- Drowning Accidents
- Day Care Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- What is Medical Malpractice?
- Filing a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Malpractice Claims & Litigation Process
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect
- Misdiagnosis & Faulure to Diagnose
- Pharmacy & Prescription Errors
- Surgical Errors & Mistakes
- Nursing Malpractice
- Birth Injury
- Rest Home Abuse
- The Informed Consent Document
- Birth Injury Malpractice
- Drug & Pharmacy Injuries
- Personal Injury
- Our Attorneys
- Success Stories
- Information Center
- Contact
Your efforts have not gone un-noticed or unappreciated, you are a master of your craft.
-
K. Johnson
Mitigating Damages Following Injury
San Antonio, Texas Injury Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
As the victim of a tort, you may be entitled to receive compensation for your injuries, property damage, lost wages, and other expenses through a personal injury lawsuit.
But you do have some responsibilities which, if ignored, could inhibit your ability to receive compensation. For instance, Texas law details a duty to mitigate damages. In other words, plaintiffs have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to limit further loss or injury after an accident.
As an example, let us say that you are doing construction work and you cut your hand on a piece of machinery. The cut is rather deep, but you are very busy, and you decide to continue working and then head home rather than visit a doctor for treatment. After a few days, your hand still hurts and is getting inflamed. But still, you put a bandage over the wound and continue on as normal. After another week, your hand is infected. Doctors are forced to amputate it. In this case, your employer would not be liable for the amputation because you could have likely prevented it if you had gone to a doctor shortly after you were injured. In other words, you failed to live up to your duty to mitigate your own damages.
Reasonable Versus Unreasonable Care
On the other hand, Texas law does not require a plaintiff to take unreasonable steps to mitigate damages. In the above scenario, you would not be required to spend two weeks in a sterilized room so your hand could heal. That would be an unreasonable step, and your failure to live in a bubble would not harm your case. The distinction between reasonable and unreasonable care is decided on a case-by-case basis, and it can be up for negotiation by an experienced attorney.
Mitigating your damages is necessary if you are to receive compensation for the full extent of your injuries. A jury may decide to reduce your settlement based on the percentage of your injuries that are due to you failing to mitigate damages. If you are found to be responsible for more than 50% of your own injuries, you may receive no compensation whatsoever.
Note that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant’s attorneys must prove that you failed to mitigate your damages – it is not assumed. Although this does not mean you can count on the defense not being able to argue this point. Many defense lawyers have experience convincing juries that victims failed to mitigate their damages and thereby are not deserving of compensation.
If you or someone in your family has been hurt in an accident, experienced San Antonio personal injury lawyer Michael Grossman from Grossman Law Offices can help you. We can ensure that you do not accidentally damage your case by helping you seek medical treatment and dealing with insurance adjusters. If necessary, we will fight aggressively to defend your rights in court. For twenty years, we have helped victims who were injured in all kinds of accidents. We have successfully resolved and investigated hundreds of cases against every major insurance carrier in the nation. In many cases, their lawyers are so afraid of facing our attorneys in court that they fully cooperate with our settlement demands. This means that we can get you back on your feet and one with your life quickly. So if you have been injured in an accident, contact San Antonio personal injury attorney Michael Grossman today, and make sure you get the compensation you need and the justice you deserve.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Back Injury Resulting in Surgery)
Recovery for car accident victim who suffered back injury resulting in surgery.
Recovery for car accident victim who suffered back injury resulting in surgery.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$100.00
$100.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Medical Malpractice (Improper Dental Surgery Resulting in Infection)
Recovery for victim of dental malpractice. Plaintiff suffered infection after wrong surgery was performed.
Recovery for victim of dental malpractice. Plaintiff suffered infection after wrong surgery was performed.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$41,250.00
$41,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Neck & Back Sprains)
(policy limits) Recovery for client who suffered sprains in the neck and back due to a rear-end car accident.
(policy limits) Recovery for client who suffered sprains in the neck and back due to a rear-end car accident.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$21,277.00
$21,277.00
Litigation Expenses:
$680.00
$680.00
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00
$210,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Neck Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$210,000.00
$210,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$70,110.00
$70,110.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,787.00
$3,787.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$2,135.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$30,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Muscle Aches, Pains & Dizziness)
Recovery for the driver of car that was side-swiped by an 18-wheeler. Plaintiff suffered muscle aches, pains & dizziness.
Recovery for the driver of car that was side-swiped by an 18-wheeler. Plaintiff suffered muscle aches, pains & dizziness.
Total Recovery:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$500.00
$500.00
$80,565.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Back Injury)
Recovery for woman who suffered a back injury in a car accident.
Recovery for woman who suffered a back injury in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$80,565.00
$80,565.00
Attorney Fees:
$32,226.00
$32,226.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,600.00
$1,600.00
$200,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Closed Head Injury)
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
Total Recovery:
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$66,666.00
$66,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,500.00
$1,500.00



