Also known as: avoidable consequences doctrine · avoidable consequences · mitigation of damages
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A damages rule that bars recovery for losses the injured party could have avoided through reasonable post-wrong conduct. The rule applies after the legal wrong occurs and focuses on the plaintiff's subsequent actions rather than conduct that helped cause the initial harm. Reasonable mitigation efforts remain recoverable even when unsuccessful.
Deborah Dunn suffered a broken leg in a collision caused by Darius Dixon's negligent driving. She delayed seeking medical treatment for two weeks, allowing the fracture to worsen into a compound injury requiring surgery. The court reduced her damages award by the amount attributable to the delay because her inaction after the accident constituted unreasonable failure to mitigate.
Dominic Drake, an actor, was wrongfully terminated from a film project by Dawson Steel Productions. The studio offered him a lead role in a similar production at the same salary and with comparable prestige. Drake declined the offer and sought full lost wages for the original term. The court held that his refusal of substantially similar employment prevented recovery of the avoidable portion of his damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Denise Donovan sued Diamond Manufacturing after developing lung disease linked to its cigarettes. Medical evidence showed that her continued heavy smoking after diagnosis substantially increased her injuries. The court applied the doctrine to bar recovery for the aggravated portion of her harm that reasonable cessation efforts would have prevented.
Dylan Duffy contracted with Delta Dynamics to begin work in two months. Delta Dynamics repudiated the agreement one week later. Duffy immediately sued for the full contract salary rather than seeking substitute employment during the remaining period. The court limited his recovery to damages that could not have been avoided by reasonable mitigation efforts before the performance date.
Dominic Drake abandoned his apartment lease with Dominion Capital six months early. The landlord made no effort to advertise or show the unit despite receiving prompt notice of the vacancy. When Dominion Capital sued for the remaining rent, the court reduced the award by the amount that reasonable reletting efforts would have produced.
Darius Dixon was injured when his car collided with a vehicle manufactured by Dawson Steel. Evidence showed that Dixon's failure to wear a seatbelt after the initial impact increased the severity of his injuries. The court invoked the doctrine to exclude recovery for the additional harm that seatbelt use would have prevented.
The doctrine addresses only the plaintiff's conduct after the legal wrong has occurred and limits recovery for losses that reasonable post-wrong actions could have prevented. Contributory negligence concerns unreasonable conduct that helps cause the initial injury itself. Courts treat the two doctrines separately because one reduces damages while the other may bar the claim entirely.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the injured party makes reasonable attempts to reduce loss, the expenses of those efforts are recoverable even if the efforts ultimately fail. The doctrine penalizes only avoidable losses, not good-faith mitigation that proves ineffective.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule bars recovery for the portion of damages that the plaintiff could have avoided through reasonable conduct after the wrong. Complete inaction triggers the limitation whenever reasonable steps would have reduced the loss.
Supporting sources
No. The plaintiff need only pursue reasonable alternatives and may reject offers that are substantially different or inferior. Courts examine whether the rejected opportunity was comparable in kind, compensation, and risk before applying the limitation.
Supporting sources
…have been modernly applied to the construction of leases.” 56 N.J. at 141. Application of the contract rule requiring mitigation of damages to a residential lease may be justified as a matter of basic fairness.[^maj-4] Professor McCormick first commented upon the inequity under the majority rule when he predicted in 1925 that…