Mitigation of damages is an attempt to prevent victims from intentionally sustaining significant losses to gain more monetary compensation. It’s meant to prevent defendants from covering unreasonable outcomes, like self-inflicted injuries intended to procure larger awards. When the Victim Refuses Medical Treatment
Full Answer
Are You a Lawyer? Grow Your Practice What Is Mitigation of Damages? Mitigation of damages is a contract law concept that requires that a victim in a contract dispute to minimize the damages that result from a breach of the contract.
What Does Duty to Mitigate Mean? Same as above, when a person suffers damages as a result of a breach of contract, he or she has the legal obligation to minimize the effects and losses resulting from the injury. The duty to mitigate works to deny recovery of any part of damages that could have been reasonably avoided.
If a victim does not mitigate damages, the court may refuse to award any exorbitant damages that could have been reasonably avoided by the victim. The court will evaluate the victim’s actions following the breach of contract to determine if they took steps that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have taken to minimize their losses.
The defendant has the burden to prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and must prove that the plaintiff could have avoided extra costs and damages such as failed to receive medical attention or have surgery to avoid future injuries.
Under the mitigation of damages doctrine, a person who has suffered an injury or loss should take reasonable action, where possible, to avoid additional injury or loss.
Most states limit mitigation of damages for provocative words to a possible reduction in Punitive Damages, as opposed to Compensatory Damages. A tort victim also should act to mitigate damages subsequent to the wrongful acts of another. For instance, assume that the victim in the assault example suffers a broken leg.
In Tort Lawmitigation of damages refers to conduct by the plaintiff that, although not constituting a civil wrong itself, may reduce the plaintiff's recovery. For example, if the victim of an assault used provocative words prior to the assault, the words may mitigate the plaintiff's damages. Most states limit mitigation of damages for provocative words to a possible reduction in Punitive Damages, as opposed to Compensatory Damages.
A tort victim also should act to mitigate damages subsequent to the wrongful acts of another. For instance, assume that the victim in the assault example suffers a broken leg. If the victim refuses to get medical treatment and the leg eventually must be amputated, the defendant may be liable only for the reasonable medical expenses to repair a broken leg. Because a reasonable person would seek medical attention after suffering a broken leg, a court could find it unreasonable to make the defendant pay for additional damage that the victim could have prevented with minimal effort.
The doctrine of mitigation of damagesgenerally does not require
Mitigation of damages is a legal defense usually seen in tort or contract law. Also known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, it’s the idea that an injured party cannot recover unreasonable expenses related to their injury when they could have avoided such expenses with reasonable effort.
One of the most common examples of mitigating damages involves medical treatment in personal injury cases. When a plaintiff refuses treatment after their injuries or fails to get medical attention altogether, it could be a “failure to mitigate” situation.
Many plaintiffs seek compensation for lost wages related to an accident. However, if the defendant shows that they had opportunities to find employment and work but failed to follow through, it could reduce their award. Legally, there’s a notable line between being unable to work and refusing to work.
Victims have a right to request compensation from the party that harmed them.
Indeed, this concept prevents injured parties from receiving damages in situations where they could have reasonably avoided their injury or minimized the cost and impact of their injuries. However, like many aspects of tort and contract law, situations involving the mitigation of damages can become quite complicated.
A person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act by another has a legal duty to "mitigate" those damages; that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity he may have had under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss.
BarPrepHero Premium offers the most complete collection of real bar exam questions licensed directly from NCBE (the organization that writes the exam).
A plaintiff who proves their personal injury case may receive compensation. This compensation, called damages, includes past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage, to name a few.
An accident victim doesn’t have to take every step to avoid damages after an accident, no matter how inconvenient or expensive. They must only take reasonable precautions to prevent additional losses.
Sometimes, there is confusion between the doctrine of comparative negligence and the duty to mitigate. Both involve reducing the award of damages due to the plaintiff’s conduct. Comparative negligence, however, refers to when the plaintiff is partially at fault in the accident and has their damages proportionately reduced.
If a person injured you due to unreasonable behavior, you can file a personal injury claim against them.
In a personal injury case, the burden of proof is usually on the claimant to prove the elements of their case. However, when a defendant claims mitigation of damages as an affirmative defense, they assume the burden of proof.
One aspect of damages that victims can claim is a loss of wages. If their injuries led to lost wages or even job loss, they should be compensated. However, if the victim could perform some sort of work, they need to attempt to find employment and limit the amount of lost wages. If they do not, they may have failed to mitigate their damages.
Mitigation of damages applies to breach of contract cases, real estate disputes, contract law, and personal injury cases. Also called the doctrine of avoidable consequences, mitigation of damages rules work to reduce a claimant’s final compensation if some of the claimed expenses could have been avoided.
Legal rights go hand-in-hand with legal obligations. As the injured party, you have a legal obligation to limit your losses the way any reasonable person would in the same situation.
Being injured in an accident doesn’t take away your patient rights. You still have the legal right and independence to make decisions about your medical care.
After an injury, you may not be able to return to work right away or work in the capacity that you did before the accident. Your lost wages make up a portion of your damages.