Mitigate Damages

How Does a Jury Decide What is “Reasonable” When Considering Allegations of Failure to Mitigate Damages?

Each personal injury case is unique. The steps that you might take to mitigate damages must be based on the facts and circumstances of your situation. Therefore, a jury views your actions according to the “reasonable person” standard.

The jurors decide what a person with ordinary prudence would have done in the same situation. Then, they compare your conduct to the “reasonable person.” If your conduct falls short of the “reasonable person” standard, the jury might find that you failed to mitigate damages.

Jurors may consider various factors when determining whether you took sufficient steps to mitigate damages after an accident or injury. 

Factors the jurors might consider include:

• The type and severity of your injuries
• When you first became aware that you needed to mitigate damages
• The amount of time between your injury and your efforts to mitigate damages
• Whether you sought medical treatment within a reasonable time after discovering the injuries
• The effectiveness of the steps you took to mitigate damages
• The opportunities you had to avoid losses and damages 
• Any expenses that you would have incurred to mitigate damages and your ability to pay those expenses

An insurance company will almost always use delays in medical care to allege failure to mitigate damages. Even if you do not believe you were seriously injured in an accident, it is best to see a doctor for an examination. You could have sustained injuries that you might not know about until a doctor completes an evaluation.