Mitigation of damages

What is mitigation of damages?

Mitigation of damages is the legal principle requiring an injured person to take reasonable steps to limit the extent of their own losses, rather than allowing harm to unnecessarily worsen through inaction.

It does not require heroic or extraordinary effort. It requires reasonable, ordinary steps a person in similar circumstances would genuinely be expected to take.

Failing to take reasonable steps can reduce a defendant's responsibility for the portion of harm that reasonable action would have prevented, though it does not eliminate liability for the underlying injury itself.

Understanding this obligation matters considerably to avoiding an argument the defense will otherwise readily raise regarding any worsening of your condition.

What does this specific obligation typically require?

Several categories of reasonable conduct generally satisfy this obligation across most injury situations.

• Seeking appropriate medical treatment following the injury
• Following reasonable treatment recommendations from your own physicians
• Attempting to return to work where medically appropriate to do so
• Taking reasonable steps to prevent a minor injury from becoming considerably worse
• Not unreasonably refusing treatment that would likely improve your condition

Why does this principle matter so significantly to a defense argument?

Because a defendant will frequently argue that some portion of your current condition results from your own failure to take reasonable steps, rather than entirely from their own original negligence.

The specific burden generally falls on the defendant to prove both that you failed to take a reasonable step and that this failure genuinely worsened your condition beyond what the original injury alone would have caused.

This is why consistent, appropriate treatment, without any unexplained gap, matters considerably to avoiding this particular argument entirely.

What does this obligation genuinely not require?

It does not require undergoing a risky or experimental treatment simply because refusing it might reduce a defendant's ultimate financial responsibility.

It does not require heroic effort or expense beyond what a reasonable person in similar circumstances would genuinely be expected to undertake.

Reasonable, documented explanations for declining a specific treatment, such as genuine medical risk or a documented financial barrier, generally satisfy this obligation even where a specific step was not actually taken.

Common questions

Does this obligation mean I have to undergo surgery I am genuinely afraid of?

No. It requires reasonable steps rather than extraordinary ones, and a documented, genuine concern about a specific treatment's risk is generally a reasonable basis for declining it.

What if I could not afford recommended treatment?

A genuine, documented financial barrier is generally a reasonable explanation, particularly where you raised the issue rather than simply disappearing from treatment without explanation.

Who has to prove I failed to satisfy this obligation?

Generally the defendant, who must show both that you failed to take a reasonable step and that this failure genuinely worsened your condition beyond the original injury.