Also known as: mitigation doctrine · mitigation of damages · duty to mitigate · mitigate · mitigated · mitigating · avoidable consequences doctrine · mitigation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule limiting recovery in damages actions by requiring the injured party to take reasonable steps to avoid or reduce further losses after the initial harm. The doctrine prevents recovery for losses that could have been prevented by ordinary diligence without extraordinary risk or expense.
Daniel Diaz discovered his spouse in an act of adultery and immediately killed the other person with a deadly weapon. The factfinder inferred intent to kill from the weapon use. The killing would otherwise be murder but the adequate provocation reduced it to voluntary manslaughter.
Dolores Diaz learned her client had used her services to commit fraud causing substantial financial injury to a third party. She disclosed limited information to prevent and mitigate the injury under the exception to confidentiality.
Devon Drake sought a development permit for a project that would increase traffic and reduce green space. The city conditioned approval on Drake conveying an easement for public access. The condition directly mitigated the project's impacts and satisfied the essential nexus requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diane Dawson abandoned the leased commercial property before the term ended. The landlord chose not to relet and instead recovered accrued rent only. The absence of a duty to mitigate left the tenant liable for rent due without offset from a replacement tenant.
Dwight Dorsey's negligent conduct damaged Diana Delgado's property but also conferred a special benefit on the same interest by improving drainage. The court reduced damages by the equitable value of the benefit conferred.
Decker Electronics employee Devon Drake honestly but unreasonably believed deadly force was necessary to defend against an attacker. The belief mitigated the killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter in the jurisdiction recognizing the doctrine.
No. The doctrine requires only reasonable good-faith efforts to minimize loss. Success is not required and the party need not undertake extraordinary measures or incur substantial expense.
Supporting sources
The doctrine of mitigation limits recovery for avoidable losses while the collateral source rule permits recovery even when a third party has compensated the plaintiff. The two rules operate independently.
Supporting sources
Under the traditional rule followed in many jurisdictions the landlord has no duty to mitigate by reletting and may simply recover rent due. The landlord may instead accept surrender or relet on the tenant's account.
The condition must have an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest that would justify permit denial and must be roughly proportional to the development's impact. The government bears the burden on proportionality.
…the statutory requirements. Good motives and belief in truth do not negate an inference of malice, but are relevant only in mitigation of punitive damages if the jury chooses to accord them weight. Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, supra, 271 Ala., at 495, 124 So. 2d, at 458. The question before us is whether this rule of…