Also known as: avoidable consequence rule · doctrine of avoidable consequences · mitigation of damages
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A damages limitation principle that reduces recovery by the value of any special benefit the defendant's tortious conduct conferred on the interest of the plaintiff that was harmed, to the extent equitable.
Antonio Alvarado suffered property damage when Apex Dynamics negligently flooded his warehouse. The flooding incidentally improved drainage on the lot, increasing its market value by half the repair cost. The court reduced Antonio's award by the value of that drainage improvement.
Alexandra Armstrong refused a substitute film role that matched her original contract in pay, length, and artistic control. The studio offered the part only after terminating her. The court held that her rejection did not reduce the damages owed for the lost engagement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Anika Anand continued heavy smoking for years after federal warning labels appeared on cigarette packages. Her estate later sued the manufacturer for failure to warn. The jury reduced her damages to reflect the portion of harm attributable to her post-warning conduct.
Aaron Adams learned that Alpine Mining would not honor his employment contract and immediately filed suit for lost wages. He made no effort to locate other work during the remaining contract period. The court permitted recovery of the full promised salary without reduction for unattempted mitigation.
Andrew Avery was injured when his car collided with a defective vehicle made by Apollo Energy. Evidence showed that wearing a seat belt would have prevented most of his injuries. The jury applied comparative principles and reduced his award by the percentage of harm attributable to the omitted restraint.
Yes. The rule permits recovery of losses that persist despite reasonable mitigation efforts. A party that tries in good faith to limit harm is not penalized when those efforts prove unsuccessful.
Supporting sources
Reletting for the tenant's account credits the new rent against the original tenant's obligation. The tenant remains liable only for the shortfall between the contract rent and the amount actually obtained on reasonable terms.
Supporting sources
Only if the cover purchase was made in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner. Known lower-priced alternatives available shortly after repudiation can render the actual purchases unreasonable and limit recovery to the lower market price.
Supporting sources
Yes. Refusal of surgery that would mitigate injury can reduce recovery for both lost wages and pain and suffering, even when the procedure carries some risk.
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%…