Also known as: avoidable damage · mitigation of damages · avoidable consequences
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A limitation on recoverable damages that bars compensation for losses the injured party could have prevented through reasonable efforts after notice of a breach or tortious act.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals released a chemical that damaged Anika Anand's adjacent farmland. The release also deposited nutrients that increased crop yields on the same land. The court reduces Anika's damages award by the value of the yield increase because the tortious conduct conferred a special benefit to the harmed interest.
Amelia Amari refused a substitute acting job offered by Arcadia Retail after her contract was breached. The role was substantially similar in pay, location, and prestige. Her damages are reduced because she failed to mitigate by accepting available comparable employment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Alfred Ashford sued Aurora Biotech after developing lung disease linked to its product. The jury found Alfred more than fifty percent at fault for continuing to smoke despite warnings. His damages are diminished by the percentage of negligence attributed to him under comparative fault principles.
Abigail Alvarez bought substitute grain on the open market after Adrian Aguilar repudiated a supply contract. She purchased during a price spike even though lower-priced lots were available the prior week. Her cover damages are limited to the difference between the contract price and the lower price reasonably available through prompt mitigation.
No. Reasonable but unsuccessful mitigation efforts do not bar recovery of residual losses or the costs of the efforts themselves. The rule only prevents recovery of losses that could have been avoided through reasonable steps.
A landlord cannot recover rent for periods when the space could have been relet through ordinary marketing efforts. Leaving the premises vacant for image reasons does not excuse the duty because such preferences do not constitute undue risk, burden, or humiliation.
Costs incurred in reasonable mitigation attempts are recoverable even if the attempts fail. The inquiry focuses on whether the decision was prompt and sensible based on information available at the time, not on hindsight success.
…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…