Also known as: avoidable harm · avoiding harm · avoided harm · avoid harms · mitigation of damages · avoidable consequences · duty to mitigate
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An equitable limitation on recoverable damages that bars recovery for losses the injured party could have prevented through reasonable efforts after the breach or tort. The doctrine requires the claimant to take steps that avoid or minimize harm without undue risk, burden, or humiliation. Recovery is permitted for losses that persist despite reasonable but unsuccessful mitigation attempts.
Clear Housing terminated a commercial lease with Prairie Properties after two years. A fast-casual restaurant offered to sublease at a modestly lower rent, but Prairie Properties refused because it disliked the competitor. Prairie Properties then sought the full remaining rent from Clear Housing. The court limited recovery to the difference between the original rent and the sublease amount that could have been obtained.
Twentieth Century-Fox terminated its contract with an actress scheduled to star in a musical film. The studio offered her the lead in a western instead. She declined the substitute role and sued for the full contract price. The court held that rejection of substantially similar employment prevented mitigation of damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Liggett Group faced a products liability suit brought by the estate of a longtime smoker. The smoker had continued the habit after receiving repeated medical advice to stop. The court applied comparative fault principles and reduced damages to reflect the percentage of harm attributable to the smoker's post-warning conduct.
De La Tour repudiated a courier contract weeks before the start date. The courier immediately began searching for substitute engagements of similar type and duration. When no comparable work materialized before the original performance date, the courier sued for the full fee. The court permitted full recovery because the mitigation efforts had been reasonable.
Yes. Recovery remains available for losses that persist despite reasonable mitigation attempts. The rule protects claimants who act diligently even when their efforts do not fully eliminate the harm.
A claimant may decline a substitute that would impose undue risk, burden, or humiliation. In employment cases, offers of substantially inferior work do not trigger the mitigation limit.
In cases where the defendant acted intentionally or with reckless disregard, damages are generally not reduced unless the plaintiff herself intentionally or heedlessly failed to protect her own interests after the harm occurred.
Yes. When a landlord notifies the tenant of the intent to relet and applies new rent to the tenant's account, the tenant's future liability is reduced by amounts actually received from replacement tenants.
…toe surgery as relevant to comparative fault. However, the Court concluded that her post-surgery behavior was relevant only to avoidable consequences. On remand, the jury was instructed to arrive at two percentage figures regarding plaintiff's conduct: first, the degree to which her conduct after treatment had begun was responsible for…