The doctrine of avoidable consequences bars recovery for losses the plaintiff could reasonably have prevented. In injury cases this typically concerns following medical advice, pursuing recommended treatment, and seeking suitable employment within physical restrictions.
It is an affirmative defense, so the defendant bears the burden of proving that reasonable steps were available and would have reduced the loss.
Alternative Names:
Duty to Mitigate, Avoidable Consequences Doctrine
Why it Matters?
Mitigation is most effective as a damages argument rather than a technical defense, because juries respond to evidence that a plaintiff declined recommended surgery or never attempted vocational retraining. The limiting principle is that the standard is reasonableness under the circumstances, and courts are reluctant to require a plaintiff to undergo significant surgical risk. Financial inability to obtain treatment is generally not a failure to mitigate.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Who has the burden of proving failure to mitigate?
Can a plaintiff be required to undergo surgery?
