Damage mitigation has also been invoked in the area of property law. For example, if a tenant terminates their lease, a landlord is required to mitigate the damage caused by the offending tenant. In this case, the mitigation doctrine imposes an obligation on the landlord to try to find a new tenant and re-rent the property. To better explain mitigation, here are some examples in different areas of law: As above, if a person suffers damage as a result of a breach of contract, they are required by law to minimize the impact and losses resulting from the breach. The purpose of the obligation to mitigate damages is to refuse to reimburse a portion of the damage that could reasonably have been avoided. The doctrine of harm reduction, also known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, prevents an aggrieved party from compensating for harm that could have been avoided by reasonable effort. Mitigation is a contract law concept that requires a victim in a contract dispute to minimize damages resulting from a breach of contract. This means that the victim is required by law to act in a manner that mitigates both the effects of the violation and his or her own personal loss, and even though the victim who suffers personal harm through no fault of his or her own is obliged to take reasonable steps to avoid further losses and minimize the consequences of the harm. The court will first examine the contract itself. The court will determine what was promised and by whom.
The court will evaluate the terms of the contract. The court also decides whether there is an offence and, if so, when. If there is no infringement, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. The question of what is appropriate is particularly controversial in cases of bodily injury where the applicant refuses medical advice. This can be seen in cases such as Janiak v. Ippolito. [3] The antonym of attenuation is aggravation. If a victim does not mitigate the harm, the court may refuse to award exorbitant harm that the victim could reasonably have avoided.
The court evaluates the victim`s actions after the breach of contract to determine whether they took steps that a reasonable person would have taken in similar circumstances to minimize their losses. However, mitigation does not require the victim to take extreme measures or make significant sacrifices to avoid or minimize losses. The defendant`s actions may also lead to the mitigation of damages that would otherwise have been owed to the successful plaintiff. For example, the Civil Law (Torts) Act 2002 (ACT) provides that mitigation for the publication of defamatory content may result from an apology from a defendant and a published correction (Section 139I). n. in criminal law, conditions or events that do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but which are considered to be unlenient or unfairness in determining the degree of crime charged by the prosecutor or influencing the reduction of sentence in the event of conviction. Example: A young man shoots his father after years of being beaten, belittled, insulted and treated lovelessly. The “heat of passion” or the “diminishing of capacity” are forms of such extenuating circumstances. [Last updated June 2020 by Wex Definitions team] Mitigation in law is the principle that a party who has suffered damages (tort or contract) must take reasonable steps to minimize the amount of damage suffered. According to the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada in Redpath Industries Ltd.
v. Cisco (Le),[1] “it is common knowledge that a party who suffers damage as a result of a breach of contract is required to mitigate that damage, i.e. the infringer cannot be held liable for paying avoidable losses that would result in an increase in the amount of damages payable to the injured party.” The burden of proof of the failure to mitigate damages lies with the defendant. The onus is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff did not mitigate the damages and must prove that they could have avoided additional costs and damages, for example: No medical care was received or operated on to prevent future injuries. The defendant need only prove, by “predominating the evidence”, that he did not reduce the costs or losses that he could reasonably have avoided. “Reasonably avoided” has no specific definition, but generally means what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. If a person is required to mitigate the damages, and they do not, the courts will generally reduce their damages by the amount they could have mitigated. If a plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant`s negligence, the plaintiff is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate the plaintiff`s damages. If the plaintiff does not mitigate its damages and the defendant proves that it did not take reasonable steps to reduce its losses after the injury, the court will reduce the plaintiff`s damages by the amount that the plaintiff could have avoided or mitigated. For example, imagine a tenant who signs an agreement to rent a house for a year, but moves out after only a month (and stops paying the rent).
