Mitigation of damages
Your obligation to take reasonable steps to limit your own losses.
It is the doctrine behind the argument that you made your injury worse by not going to appointments — which is why gaps in treatment get raised. This is general information, not legal advice.
What it means
The law does not require you to do everything possible. It asks whether you acted reasonably. Someone who could not attend physiotherapy because they could not afford it, or could not get there, has not failed to mitigate in the way the doctrine means.
The burden is on the defendant to show that a reasonable step would have reduced the loss and that you did not take it. It is not on you to prove you did everything right.
In practice this shows up as an argument about treatment gaps, and it is answered with the reason for the gap rather than an apology for it.
Where this is dealt with properly
This entry is the short answer. These pages own the subject.
Common questions
- I stopped treatment because I could not pay. Will that be used against me?
- It will be raised. The answer is the reason. The test is whether you acted reasonably in your circumstances, and being unable to afford care is a circumstance.
Start a case review call
On a case review call, I go through the facts with you: what happened, when, whether you were hurt, whether anyone represents you, and how to reach you. It is not legal advice, and I will not put a value on your claim.
Sources: none. Mitigation of damages is practice vocabulary rather than a legal term of art — no California statute, rule or case defines it, so this page cites none. Attaching an authority that nearly fits would be worse than saying that plainly.