Also known as: mitigation principle · mitigation · duty to mitigate · mitigation doctrine · mitigation of damages
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A damages principle requiring an injured party to take reasonable steps to minimize losses from a breach or tort. Recovery is limited to losses that could not reasonably have been avoided by arranging a substitute transaction or other mitigation measures. When the defendant's conduct confers a special benefit on the interest harmed, that benefit offsets damages to the extent equity requires.
Phoebe Park's negligent driving damaged Piper Patel's warehouse but also cleared an adjacent lot that Patel later sold at a profit. The court credits the sale proceeds against Patel's repair costs because the tortious act conferred a special benefit on the harmed interest. Patel recovers only the net loss after the offset.
After Pioneer Energy breached its contract to star Phoebe Park in a musical, the studio offered her a lead in a dramatic film at the same salary. Park refused because the new role lacked song-and-dance numbers. The court holds that the offer was not inferior employment, so Park's refusal bars recovery of the full contract damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pamela Phillips sued a cigarette maker for lung disease but continued smoking after warnings appeared. The jury found her more than fifty percent at fault for failing to mitigate by quitting. Under comparative fault rules her recovery is barred entirely.
Prosperity Investments concealed a car's defect and sold it to Pedro Pacheco. A jury awarded large punitive damages. The Supreme Court reduced the award because the harm was economic and the company had already paid substantial compensatory damages that mitigated the need for further punishment.
Premier Manufacturing required employees to arbitrate claims but reserved litigation rights for itself. The court finds the lack of mutuality substantively unconscionable and refuses to enforce the clause, noting that mitigation principles do not cure the one-sided burden.
Phuong Pham contracted to perform services for Phoenix Technologies starting in two months. Phoenix repudiated the deal immediately. Pham secured substitute work within a week. The court measures damages by the difference between the original contract rate and the substitute earnings because the principle of mitigation required prompt efforts to replace the lost opportunity.
No. The principle requires only reasonable efforts to minimize loss. An offer of employment that eliminates significant contract rights is not comparable, so refusal does not bar recovery of damages.
Supporting sources
Under the principle of mitigation a benefit to the exact interest harmed offsets damages to the extent equity permits. The offset applies only when the benefit arises directly from the tortious conduct.
Supporting sources
A buyer must cover in good faith and without unreasonable delay. Proper cover satisfies the mitigation duty and permits recovery of the price differential plus incidental damages.
Supporting sources
Failure to mitigate bars recovery only for losses that reasonable efforts would have avoided. The injured party still recovers damages for unavoidable harm.
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%…