Also known as: avoidable consequences rule · avoidable consequence doctrine · mitigation of damages · avoidable consequences doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A damages doctrine that limits recovery to those losses the injured party could not reasonably have avoided. Reasonable costs incurred in good-faith mitigation attempts are themselves recoverable even when the efforts ultimately fail to reduce the harm.
After HarborLine repudiated a long-term vessel charter, BlueWave Shipping spent substantial sums repositioning the ship and marketing it for substitute work. BlueWave secured only sporadic short-term charters at reduced rates. BlueWave may recover its remaining losses plus the reasonable repositioning costs because those expenditures were part of a good-faith mitigation effort.
Twentieth Century-Fox offered actress Parker a substitute lead role in another film after canceling her original picture. Parker declined the offer because the substitute role differed substantially in character and compensation. Parker's rejection does not reduce her damages because the alternative employment was not substantially similar to the role she lost.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Mrs. Cipollone continued smoking after cigarette warnings appeared on packages. The jury found her more than fifty percent responsible for her own injuries under comparative fault principles. Her post-warning conduct reduces recoverable damages because it constitutes contributory negligence that the avoidable consequences doctrine requires the fact-finder to consider.
Daly was injured when his vehicle collided with a defective automobile manufactured by General Motors. Evidence showed Daly had not fastened his seatbelt and had been drinking. On retrial the jury may reduce Daly's damages under comparative fault principles because his conduct contributed to the extent of his injuries.
Yes. Contract and tort law permit recovery of reasonable expenditures made in good-faith attempts to minimize loss even when those efforts fail. The avoidable consequences doctrine penalizes only losses that could have been avoided, not the costs of reasonable mitigation attempts themselves.
Recovery is barred only when the injured party fails to make reasonable efforts or chooses plainly excessive or reckless steps. Expenses are recoverable when the decision to mitigate was sensible based on information available at the time, regardless of ultimate success.
No. The doctrine applies across contract, tort, and statutory claims as a cardinal principle of damages measurement. It trims recovery to reflect actual compensable loss in every category of case where damages are sought.
Many jurisdictions impose no affirmative duty on a landlord to relet abandoned premises. When the landlord elects to keep the lease in force and demand rent, the tenant remains liable for the full term unless the landlord accepts surrender or agrees to mitigate.
…which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that once a legal wrong has occurred, plaintiff's conduct after that time bears only on mitigation of damages (even if some of plaintiff's injuries have not yet manifested themselves). Such conduct does not, however, bear on whether plaintiff's comparative fault falls above or below the 50%…