How To Prove A California Failure to Mitigate Damages Defense

In California, a defense of Failure to Mitigate Damages is defined as:
Mitigation of damages means the requirement that someone injured by another’s negligence or breach of contract must take reasonable steps to reduce the damages, injury, or cost, and to prevent them from getting worse.
It simply means:
An injured person did nothing to reduce his or her damages, so a damages award may be reduced as a result.
There are 2 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. The defendant breached a contract or caused some other harm to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to follow the terms of a contract or did something that harmed the plaintiff, which is a key part of the argument that the plaintiff didn’t do enough to reduce their losses after the harm occurred.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to deliver the contracted goods by the agreed-upon deadline, causing the plaintiff to incur additional costs.
* The defendant did not respond to the plaintiff’s requests for clarification regarding the contract terms, leading to misunderstandings and financial losses.
* The defendant’s actions directly resulted in the plaintiff losing a significant business opportunity, which could have mitigated their damages.
* The defendant provided substandard services that did not meet the specifications outlined in the contract, forcing the plaintiff to seek alternative solutions.
* The defendant’s refusal to negotiate a settlement after the breach exacerbated the plaintiff’s financial situation, preventing them from minimizing their losses. - Element 2. Defendant can prove that some or all of the harm to the plaintiff could have been avoided with reasonable efforts or expenditures and without undue risk or hardship. The defendant can show that the plaintiff could have reduced their losses by taking reasonable steps or spending a little money, without facing too much difficulty or danger.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff failed to seek timely medical treatment after the incident, which exacerbated their injuries and prolonged recovery.
* The plaintiff had access to alternative employment opportunities that would have mitigated their financial losses but chose not to pursue them.
* The plaintiff was aware of a less expensive repair option for their damaged property but opted for a more costly solution without justification.
* The plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to secure their property against further damage after the initial incident, leading to additional losses.
* The plaintiff received advice from a professional on how to minimize their damages but chose to ignore it, resulting in greater harm.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 358. Green v. Smith, 261 Cal. App. 2d 392 – Cal: Court of Appeal 1968. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 3930.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Failure to Mitigate Damages, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. This preparation is crucial to effectively present your defense and protect your interests.
Prove Your CA Failure to Mitigate Damages Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only