Also known as: fail to mitigate damages · failed to mitigate damages · failing to mitigate damages · failures to mitigate damages · mitigation of damages · duty to mitigate · avoidable consequences doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that limits an injured party's recovery to losses that could not reasonably have been avoided. The injured party must take reasonable steps to reduce damages after a breach or tortious act. Recovery is barred for losses that reasonable mitigation would have prevented.
Fernando Farrell's negligent driving damaged Freya Freeman's delivery van and also cleared a blocked access road that had prevented her shipments. When calculating damages, the court credited the value of the cleared road against the repair costs because the tortious act conferred a special benefit to the harmed interest. Freya recovered only the net loss after the offset.
Falcon Dynamics offered Francesca Fiore the lead in a similar film after breaching her contract for a musical. She declined the substitute role and sought full lost wages. The court reduced her recovery because the alternative position was comparable in pay and prestige and would have avoided most of the claimed loss.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Flagship Logistics continued smoking after learning of health risks linked to its products. When sued, the company raised her ongoing use as a failure to mitigate. The court applied comparative fault principles and reduced damages to reflect the portion of harm attributable to her continued conduct after the risks were known.
Forrest Falconer received advance notice that his employment contract would be breached. He immediately began searching for comparable work and secured a new position before the breach date. His damages were limited to the brief period before the new employment began because the prompt search avoided further losses.
Yes. The doctrine requires reasonable efforts to reduce losses whether the claim arises from breach of contract or from a tort. Primary authorities in both areas impose the same limitation on recoverable damages.
Supporting sources
Yes. The defendant must plead and prove that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avoid further loss. Courts treat it as an affirmative defense that reduces or bars recovery for avoidable damages.
Supporting sources
The injured party must act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances without undue risk, burden, or humiliation. Efforts that are reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful still satisfy the duty.
Supporting sources
Jurisdictions differ. Some impose a duty to make reasonable efforts to relet. Others follow the traditional rule that no such duty exists absent a lease provision or statute.
Supporting sources
…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%…