Also known as: mitigate loss · mitigating loss · mitigated loss · duty to mitigate · mitigation of damages
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A rule of damages calculation that reduces an award by the value of any special benefit the defendant's tortious conduct conferred on the plaintiff to the extent equity permits.
A rule of damages calculation that reduces an award by the value of any special benefit the defendant's tortious conduct conferred on the plaintiff to the extent equity permits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle requiring an injured party to make reasonable efforts to minimize losses resulting from a breach of contract or tort, limiting recovery to losses that could not reasonably have been avoided without undue risk, burden, or humiliation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle requiring an injured party to make reasonable efforts to minimize losses resulting from a breach of contract or tort, limiting recovery to losses that could not reasonably have been avoided without undue risk, burden, or humiliation.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
After a delivery truck owned by Millennium Media struck Melanie Morris's fence, the impact also cleared an invasive vine that had been damaging the structure. Millennium Media's insurer argued the clearance reduced the net harm. The court credited the value of the vine removal against the fence repair damages because the tortious act conferred a special benefit on the exact interest harmed.
Yes. When the defendant's conduct confers a special benefit on the very interest harmed, the value of that benefit is credited against damages to the extent equity allows, regardless of whether the plaintiff sought the benefit.
Supporting sources
After tenant Alex Rivera abandoned a residential apartment leased from landlord Magnolia Properties, the landlord left the unit vacant for six months without advertising or showing it. The court denied recovery for the vacant period because the landlord failed to make reasonable efforts to relet the premises as required by the duty to mitigate.
No. The rule requires only reasonable efforts to avoid loss without undue risk, burden, or humiliation. When those efforts prove unsuccessful, the injured party may still recover the remaining loss that could not reasonably have been prevented.
Supporting sources
Recovery is barred for the period during which the landlord could have avoided the loss by making ordinary commercial efforts to relet. Leaving the space vacant for image reasons or without any marketing effort constitutes an unreasonable failure to mitigate.
Supporting sources
No. Damages are reduced by the earnings the employee could have obtained in comparable positions that were unreasonably declined. Offers of similar work at slightly lower pay in the same profession are treated as avoidable loss.
Supporting sources