Most people don’t think much about what happens after a contract falls apart or someone gets hurt, but the law actually expects folks to do something about it. This is where the mitigation of damages rule comes in. Basically, if you’re the one who suffered a loss, you can’t just sit back and let things get worse, hoping to collect a bigger check later. The law says you have to take reasonable steps to keep your losses as small as possible. If you don’t, you might not be able to recover the full amount you’re asking for. Let’s break down what this all means in plain language and see how it plays out in real life.
Key Takeaways
- The mitigation of damages rule requires injured parties to try to limit their losses after harm occurs.
- Courts expect people to take reasonable actions, like finding a new job after being fired or getting medical help after an injury.
- If someone fails to try to reduce their damages, they may not get full compensation in court.
- The person who caused the harm usually has to prove that the other side didn’t try to mitigate their losses.
- Mitigation applies in both contract and tort cases, but what counts as ‘reasonable’ depends on the situation.
Understanding the Duty to Mitigate Damages
The Core Principle of Mitigation
The duty to mitigate damages is a fundamental concept in law. It basically means that if someone has been wronged or suffered a loss, they can’t just sit back and let the damages get worse if they could have reasonably prevented it. The law expects injured parties to take sensible steps to minimize their losses. Think of it like this: if your neighbor’s tree falls and damages your fence, you’re expected to get a quote for repairs and arrange for the work to be done, rather than letting the hole in the fence get bigger and cause more damage to your yard. It’s about being proactive and not letting a bad situation snowball unnecessarily. This principle applies across various legal contexts, from contract disputes to personal injury cases.
Legal Basis for Mitigation Obligations
The obligation to mitigate damages isn’t just a suggestion; it’s rooted in legal principles that aim for fairness and prevent parties from recovering damages that could have been avoided. In contract law, this duty arises from the idea that a party should not be compensated for losses they could have reasonably prevented after a breach. For instance, if a supplier fails to deliver goods, the buyer generally must try to find an alternative source rather than letting their own business operations halt completely. In tort law, the principle is similar: an injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to limit the extent of their injuries or losses. This duty is often seen as a natural consequence of the legal system’s goal to make injured parties whole, but not to put them in a better position than they would have been had the wrong not occurred. The concept is widely recognized in common law jurisdictions and is a standard consideration in civil litigation.
Impact on Claimed Losses
Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate can significantly affect the amount of damages a party can recover. If a plaintiff could have reasonably reduced their losses but didn’t, a court may reduce the compensation awarded by the amount that could have been saved. For example, in a personal injury case where lost wages are claimed, if the injured person refuses a reasonable job offer that accommodates their injury, their claim for future lost earnings might be reduced. This doesn’t mean the injured party has to undertake extraordinary measures or incur significant expense; the steps must be reasonable under the circumstances. The burden of proving that the injured party failed to mitigate typically falls on the defendant, who must show that reasonable steps were available and not taken. This can lead to complex factual disputes during litigation, focusing on what actions were practical and affordable for the injured party at the time.
The Mitigation of Damages Rule in Practice
Reasonable Steps to Minimize Harm
So, you’ve suffered a loss, whether it’s from a broken contract or someone’s careless actions. What happens next? Well, the law generally expects you to do your part to keep things from getting worse. This is the core idea behind the duty to mitigate damages. It’s not about magically fixing everything, but about taking sensible actions to reduce the extent of your losses. Think of it like this: if a pipe bursts in your house, you don’t just let the water run and run, right? You turn off the main valve, grab some towels, and call a plumber. That’s mitigation in action. The legal system looks for similar reasonable efforts from anyone seeking compensation.
What counts as ‘reasonable’ can vary a lot, depending on the situation. It’s not about making heroic sacrifices or spending a fortune to save a few bucks. It’s about what an ordinary, prudent person would do in similar circumstances. This might involve:
- Seeking alternative employment if your job was lost due to a breach.
- Getting necessary medical treatment after an injury to prevent further complications.
- Taking steps to repair damaged property to prevent additional deterioration.
- Exploring other available options to fulfill a contractual obligation if the original plan fell through.
Essentially, the law wants to see that you didn’t just sit back and let the damages pile up when you had a chance to reasonably limit them. It’s a pretty straightforward concept, but it can get complicated when you’re actually in the thick of it.
Foreseeability of Mitigation Efforts
When we talk about what steps are considered ‘reasonable’ for mitigation, a big part of that is foreseeability. Did you know, or should you have known, that a particular action would help reduce your losses? It’s not about predicting the future with perfect accuracy, but about making educated guesses based on what’s generally understood. For instance, if you’re a contractor and a client cancels a project, it’s foreseeable that you’d try to find other work to fill that gap in your schedule. It’s less foreseeable that you’d suddenly decide to invest all your available funds in a risky new venture hoping it would somehow offset the lost income – that’s probably outside the scope of reasonable mitigation.
The idea is to prevent parties from simply letting losses snowball when practical solutions are available. It’s about being proactive, not passive, in the face of harm.
Consequences of Failing to Mitigate
So, what happens if you don’t make a good-faith effort to mitigate your damages? The consequences can be pretty significant. A court might reduce the amount of compensation you can recover. This doesn’t mean you get nothing, but it means the amount you’re awarded could be less than your total actual losses. The reasoning is that the losses you incurred beyond what you could have reasonably prevented are not considered the responsibility of the party who caused the initial harm. It’s like if your leaky pipe caused $10,000 in damage, but you left it running for a week when you could have easily turned off the water, and the total damage ballooned to $50,000. A court might say you’re only entitled to recover the initial $10,000 (or whatever amount is deemed reasonable to fix the pipe and immediate aftermath), because the extra $40,000 was preventable. This duty to minimize harm is a key aspect of civil liability and applies across many types of legal disputes.
Mitigation in Contract Law
When a contract goes south, meaning one party doesn’t hold up their end of the deal, the other party usually has to try and keep their losses from getting any worse. This is the duty to mitigate in contract law. It’s not about magically fixing the problem, but about taking sensible steps to reduce the financial hit.
Mitigating Losses After Breach
So, what does this look like after a contract is broken? Let’s say you hired someone to build a deck, and they just stop showing up halfway through. You can’t just let the unfinished deck rot and then sue for the full cost of a completed deck. You’d likely need to find another contractor to finish the job, or at least take steps to secure the site and prevent further damage. The law expects you to act reasonably to minimize the financial impact of the breach. This means you can’t just sit back and let damages pile up if there are practical ways to stop them.
The Role of Reasonable Efforts
The key here is "reasonable efforts." What’s considered reasonable can depend a lot on the situation. It’s not about going to extreme lengths or spending a fortune to mitigate. It’s about what a sensible person in your shoes would do.
Here are some common examples:
- Finding a Replacement: If a supplier fails to deliver goods, a buyer might need to look for alternative suppliers, even if the replacement costs a bit more.
- Continuing Performance: If you’re owed services, you might need to continue accepting some level of performance if it doesn’t significantly increase your losses.
- Securing Property: If a lease is broken, a landlord usually needs to try and re-rent the property to a new tenant.
Limits on Contractual Mitigation
There are limits, though. You’re not expected to do anything that would cause you undue hardship, put you in a worse position, or require you to enter into a completely different kind of contract. For instance, if you were supposed to receive custom-made furniture and the seller backs out, you probably aren’t expected to buy a similar, but not identical, piece off the shelf if it doesn’t meet your needs and you’d have to significantly alter your plans.
The duty to mitigate doesn’t mean you have to accept a deal that’s worse than the original contract, or that fundamentally changes the nature of what you bargained for. It’s about preventing avoidable losses, not about forcing you into a bad bargain to help the breaching party.
Essentially, contract law wants to make sure that the non-breaching party isn’t unfairly penalized by the other party’s failure to perform, but it also doesn’t want to reward parties for letting damages snowball when they could have reasonably prevented it.
Mitigation in Tort Law
When someone commits a civil wrong, known as a tort, and causes harm to another person, the injured party usually has a right to seek compensation. However, the law also expects that person to take reasonable steps to limit their losses. This is the duty to mitigate damages, and it applies in tort cases just as it does in contract disputes. It’s not about blaming the victim, but about making sure that the compensation awarded is fair and reflects the actual harm that couldn’t be avoided.
Minimizing Harm from Wrongful Acts
In the context of torts, this duty means that once an injury has occurred due to someone else’s wrongful act, the injured party can’t just let the damages pile up without trying to do something about it. For instance, if your property is damaged due to a neighbor’s negligence, you can’t simply ignore the damage and expect the neighbor to pay for a brand-new structure later if a simple repair could have prevented further deterioration. The law looks for reasonable actions. What’s considered reasonable depends heavily on the specific situation, but it generally involves taking practical steps to prevent the harm from getting worse or to reduce the financial impact.
Duty to Seek Medical Attention
A common area where the duty to mitigate arises in tort law is personal injury cases. If you’re injured due to someone’s negligence, like in a car accident, you have a duty to seek appropriate medical treatment. This doesn’t mean you have to undergo every single procedure suggested, especially if it’s experimental or carries significant risks. However, ignoring a clear injury or refusing reasonable medical advice that could help you recover could lead to a reduction in the damages you can claim. For example, if a doctor recommends physical therapy to regain mobility after a leg injury, refusing it without a good reason might be seen as a failure to mitigate. The goal is to get back to your pre-injury condition as much as possible.
Efforts to Reduce Lost Earning Capacity
Another significant aspect of mitigation in tort law relates to lost income or earning capacity. If an injury prevents you from working, you’re expected to make a good-faith effort to find alternative employment or to retrain if your previous job is no longer feasible. This is particularly relevant in cases of long-term or permanent disability. You can’t just sit back and expect compensation for lost wages indefinitely if there are reasonable opportunities available to earn income, even if it’s less than what you made before. The court will look at whether you actively sought employment, applied for jobs, and considered vocational rehabilitation. The idea is to get back to work and earning as much as you reasonably can, rather than relying solely on damages awarded in a lawsuit. This principle helps ensure that the compensation awarded is for the actual, unavoidable loss, not for losses that could have been prevented through diligent effort. Understanding these principles is key when pursuing a claim for personal injury.
The duty to mitigate in tort law isn’t about punishing victims for their injuries. It’s a legal principle designed to prevent the inflation of damages by requiring injured parties to act prudently and take sensible steps to limit their losses. The standard is one of reasonableness, considering what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.
Establishing Reasonable Mitigation Efforts
Objective Standard of Reasonableness
When we talk about mitigating damages, the law doesn’t expect you to perform miracles or go to extreme lengths. Instead, it looks at what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. This isn’t about what you personally think is reasonable, but rather what the law considers reasonable based on common sense and typical behavior. It’s an objective test, meaning it doesn’t focus on your unique feelings or financial situation, but on what’s generally expected. Did you take sensible steps to keep the losses from getting worse? That’s the core question.
Considering the Injured Party’s Circumstances
While the standard is objective, the law does allow for some flexibility based on the injured party’s specific situation. For instance, if someone suffers a physical injury, the court will consider their medical condition when evaluating their mitigation efforts. Someone who is bedridden due to an injury can’t be expected to do the same things as someone who is fully mobile. Similarly, financial limitations can sometimes be a factor. If taking a certain step to mitigate damages would be financially impossible for the injured party, that might be taken into account. It’s about finding a balance between the duty to minimize harm and the practical realities faced by the person who has been wronged.
Evidence of Mitigation Actions
Proving that you’ve made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages is key, especially if you’re the one claiming those damages. This means keeping records and being prepared to show what steps you took. This could include:
- Documentation: Keeping receipts for expenses incurred in trying to reduce losses, like repair bills or costs for temporary solutions.
- Communications: Records of attempts to find alternative solutions, such as emails or letters sent to potential new clients or suppliers.
- Testimony: Your own account, and potentially that of witnesses, detailing the actions you took to lessen the impact of the harm suffered.
- Expert Opinions: In some cases, an expert might testify about the reasonableness of the mitigation steps taken.
The burden of proving that reasonable mitigation efforts were not undertaken typically falls on the party being sued, but the injured party must still be able to demonstrate the actions they did take to minimize their losses.
Examples of Mitigation Efforts
Here are a few common scenarios where mitigation efforts are considered:
| Type of Loss | Potential Mitigation Efforts |
|---|---|
| Lost Profits | Seeking alternative suppliers, actively marketing to find new customers, adjusting business plans. |
| Property Damage | Arranging for temporary repairs, obtaining quotes for permanent fixes, securing damaged property. |
| Personal Injury | Following medical advice, attending physical therapy, seeking suitable alternative employment. |
| Contract Breach | Accepting a reasonable substitute performance, attempting to resell goods, minimizing further expenses. |
Consequences of Failing to Mitigate
So, what happens if you don’t try to lessen your losses after something bad happens? Basically, the law says you can’t just sit back and expect someone else to pay for everything, especially the stuff you could have reasonably avoided. Failing to take sensible steps to minimize your damages can lead to a reduction in the amount of money you can recover. It’s not about punishing you, but about making sure you’re not compensated for losses that weren’t truly caused by the other party’s actions or that you made worse yourself.
Reduction of Recoverable Damages
This is the main consequence. If a court or jury finds that you didn’t make a reasonable effort to mitigate your damages, they can reduce the amount awarded to you. This reduction is directly tied to the losses you could have avoided. For example, if you were injured and refused reasonable medical treatment that would have sped up your recovery, the damages awarded for the extended recovery period might be cut. It’s like saying, ‘We’ll pay for the harm caused, but not for the harm that happened because you didn’t do what you reasonably could to get better.’
Burden of Proof for Non-Mitigation
It’s important to know who has to prove what. Generally, the party who caused the harm (the defendant) has the burden of proving that the injured party (the plaintiff) failed to mitigate their damages. The defendant needs to show that the plaintiff’s actions or inactions were unreasonable and that these failures directly led to increased losses. This means the defendant has to present evidence demonstrating what reasonable steps the plaintiff could have taken and how those steps would have reduced the overall damages.
Impact on Legal Outcomes
Failing to mitigate can significantly impact the final outcome of a legal case. It can:
- Lower the total award: As mentioned, the most direct impact is a reduced damage award.
- Strengthen the defense’s position: It gives the defendant a strong argument to reduce their liability.
- Influence settlement negotiations: A plaintiff’s failure to mitigate can be a bargaining chip for the defendant during settlement talks, potentially leading to a lower settlement amount.
- Affect the perception of the plaintiff: While not a direct legal consequence, a jury might view a plaintiff who appears to have made no effort to help themselves less favorably.
The principle of mitigation isn’t about demanding heroic efforts. It’s about requiring ordinary prudence and reasonable actions. What’s considered ‘reasonable’ can depend a lot on the specific situation, including the injured party’s financial situation, their knowledge, and the nature of the harm itself.
Evidence of Mitigation Actions
To avoid a reduction in damages, the injured party should be prepared to show they took reasonable steps. This could involve:
- Seeking appropriate medical care: Documenting doctor’s visits, following treatment plans, and attending physical therapy.
- Looking for comparable employment: If lost wages are claimed, showing evidence of job applications, interviews, and any job offers received (even if declined for good reason).
- Protecting property: Taking steps to prevent further damage to property, such as boarding up a broken window or covering damaged goods.
- Continuing education or training: In some cases, undertaking new training to adapt to a changed employment situation might be considered reasonable mitigation.
Mitigation and Specific Types of Damages
When courts talk about mitigation, they don’t just mean one type of loss. The duty to mitigate applies to different damages—economic losses, pain and suffering, or harm to property—and the way a person tries to limit those losses can vary based on the situation. Here’s how mitigation comes into play for each category:
Economic Damages Mitigation
Economic damages are usually the easiest to measure and, in most cases, to mitigate. These include lost wages, medical bills, repair costs, and other quantifiable financial harm. If someone is wronged and suffers a loss, they’re expected to take reasonable steps to keep future losses from getting worse. For example, an employee wrongfully fired should try to find a new job instead of sitting at home hoping to recover their entire salary through a lawsuit. Similarly, when property is damaged, the owner can’t just leave it to deteriorate and expect full compensation. Here’s a snapshot of common steps:
- Seeking comparable employment if laid off or fired
- Getting medical treatment as soon as possible to avoid complications
- Arranging necessary immediate repairs to prevent further property damage
| Type of Economic Damages | Typical Mitigation Action |
|---|---|
| Lost wages | Job search; acceptance of reasonable offer |
| Medical bills | Prompt treatment; follow health advice |
| Property repair costs | Timely repairs to avoid more expense |
For a closer look at contract remedies and why mitigation matters, see this explanation of compensatory damages and related remedies.
Non-Economic Damages and Mitigation
Mitigating non-economic damages, like pain, suffering, or emotional distress, is less straightforward. Courts expect a person to act reasonably here too—seeking therapy or counseling after trauma, for example. But they also realize everyone responds to distress differently, and sometimes efforts to mitigate might fail or take time to work. Pain management strategies and other treatment plans are weighed alongside individual circumstances.
- Attending mental health counseling after injury
- Using prescribed therapies for chronic pain
- Adopting reasonable daily routines that support recovery
Non-economic losses aren’t always reduced to zero by mitigation—courts know that physical or emotional pain can remain, even if someone does their best to improve.
Mitigation in Cases of Property Damage
Property damage brings its own issues. If a storm blows a hole in your roof, you’re expected to put up a tarp or board up the area—not just let rain pour in for days. If you wait and the home suffers extra harm, you’ll probably get less money from the other party. Here’s how mitigation usually shows up with property:
- Making emergency repairs immediately after damage happens
- Safeguarding items from further harm (moving valuables from a wet basement, for instance)
- Hiring professionals only as the situation requires, not taking unnecessary costly measures
The point is, mitigation isn’t a technicality—it’s about being practical and fair. Whether it’s money, emotional harm, or property that’s been impacted, courts look for reasonable steps to limit loss, not perfection.
Challenges and Nuances of Mitigation
While the duty to mitigate damages seems straightforward – you can’t just sit back and let losses pile up if you can reasonably stop them – the reality can get pretty complicated. It’s not always clear-cut what counts as a ‘reasonable’ step, and sometimes, the injured party’s circumstances make mitigation really tough. Plus, there are specific situations where the rules get a bit fuzzy.
Financial Hardship and Mitigation
Sometimes, the very reason someone is seeking damages is because they’re in a bad financial spot. This can make taking steps to mitigate losses incredibly difficult, if not impossible. For instance, if a business owner’s property was damaged due to someone else’s negligence, and they don’t have the cash reserves to repair it quickly, does their inability to mitigate mean they get less compensation? Courts often have to weigh the injured party’s financial reality against the general expectation that they should try to minimize their losses. It’s a tricky balance.
- The core issue is whether the financial inability to act is a valid excuse for failing to mitigate.
- Courts look at the injured party’s financial situation before the harm occurred and their efforts to secure funds after the harm.
- This can involve seeking loans, exploring payment plans, or even selling assets, though the reasonableness of these actions is judged case-by-case.
The law generally expects individuals to act prudently, but it doesn’t demand heroic financial sacrifices. The focus remains on what a reasonable person, in similar financial straits, would likely attempt.
Emotional Distress and Mitigation Efforts
When the harm involves emotional distress, the idea of ‘mitigation’ can be even more complex. How does one ‘mitigate’ emotional suffering? While there’s no direct way to eliminate it, the law might still expect certain actions. For example, if someone suffers emotional distress due to a wrongful act, seeking professional counseling or therapy could be considered a reasonable mitigation effort. However, forcing someone to undergo therapy they don’t want or can’t afford raises significant ethical and practical questions. The severity of the distress and the individual’s capacity to engage in therapeutic interventions are key considerations.
- Seeking psychological counseling or therapy.
- Participating in support groups.
- Engaging in activities that promote well-being and coping.
The Interplay with Other Legal Doctrines
The duty to mitigate doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It often interacts with other legal principles, sometimes creating confusion or requiring careful legal strategy. For example, in contract law, the duty to mitigate can affect the calculation of consequential damages. In tort law, it might be considered alongside concepts like comparative negligence, where fault is shared. Understanding how these doctrines influence each other is vital for both plaintiffs trying to recover fully and defendants looking to limit their liability.
| Doctrine | Impact on Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | Limits recovery of foreseeable losses if the non-breaching party fails to take steps to reduce them. |
| Tort Law | May reduce damages awarded if the injured party unreasonably fails to minimize harm. |
| Comparative Negligence | Can influence how mitigation efforts (or lack thereof) are factored into the allocation of fault. |
The Mitigation of Damages Rule and Legal Strategy
Strategic Considerations for Plaintiffs
When you’ve suffered a loss, whether it’s from a broken contract or a careless act, the law expects you to take reasonable steps to keep that loss from getting worse. This isn’t just about fairness; it’s a legal requirement. For plaintiffs, understanding this duty upfront is key to building a strong case. It means you can’t just sit back and let damages pile up, then expect the other side to pay for it all. You have to show you did what a sensible person would do in similar circumstances to minimize the harm. This might involve looking for a replacement product, seeking alternative employment, or getting necessary medical treatment. Failing to do so can seriously impact how much money you can recover, even if the other party was clearly in the wrong. It’s about being proactive and demonstrating responsible behavior in the face of adversity.
Defense Arguments Regarding Mitigation
From a defense perspective, the duty to mitigate damages is a powerful tool. It’s often one of the first things a defense attorney will look into. They’ll scrutinize the plaintiff’s actions (or inactions) after the incident occurred. Did the plaintiff make a genuine effort to reduce their losses? Were the steps taken reasonable? For instance, if someone lost their job due to a breach of contract, a defense might argue they didn’t look hard enough for comparable employment. Or, in a personal injury case, they might claim the injured party refused reasonable medical treatment, thus exacerbating their condition. Successfully arguing that a plaintiff failed to mitigate can lead to a significant reduction in the damages awarded, sometimes even barring recovery altogether. It’s a common way to challenge the extent of the claimed losses.
Negotiation and Settlement Implications
The mitigation of damages rule plays a huge role in settlement talks. Both sides know that if the case goes to trial, the judge or jury will consider whether the plaintiff did enough to minimize their losses. This understanding shapes negotiations from the very beginning. A plaintiff who can clearly demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to mitigate might have stronger leverage to demand a higher settlement. Conversely, a defendant who can point to evidence of the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate might push for a lower offer. It’s a constant back-and-forth, with each party assessing the risks and potential outcomes related to this specific legal duty. Often, a clear understanding and documented proof of mitigation efforts can help parties reach a fair agreement without the need for a lengthy trial. It’s a practical consideration that influences the financial realities of resolving a dispute. Legal remedies are often negotiated with this duty in mind.
Wrapping Up: The Duty to Mitigate
So, we’ve talked a lot about how, when something goes wrong, the person who got hurt can’t just sit back and let things get worse. They really have to make a reasonable effort to keep the damages from piling up. It’s not about fixing everything perfectly, but about taking sensible steps. Ignoring this duty can mean they don’t get compensated for the extra losses that could have been avoided. It’s a pretty standard part of how the legal system works, trying to be fair to everyone involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean to ‘mitigate damages’?
Mitigating damages means trying your best to lessen the harm or losses you suffer after something bad happens. It’s like trying to stop a small problem from becoming a big one. For example, if your landlord breaks a promise in your lease, you should try to find a similar place to live instead of just staying put and racking up more rent payments.
Do I always have to try and reduce my losses?
Generally, yes. The law expects you to take reasonable steps to minimize your losses. This doesn’t mean you have to go to extreme measures, but you can’t just let damages pile up if you could have reasonably prevented some of them.
What happens if I don’t try to mitigate my damages?
If a court finds that you didn’t make a reasonable effort to reduce your losses, they might lower the amount of money you can receive as compensation. You might not get paid for the damages you could have reasonably avoided.
What counts as a ‘reasonable step’ to mitigate?
What’s considered reasonable depends on the situation. It means doing what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances. It doesn’t mean you have to do something that’s too expensive, too difficult, or too risky.
Does this apply to all types of cases?
Yes, the idea of mitigating damages is important in many kinds of legal cases, especially when someone is suing for money to cover losses. This includes cases about broken contracts or injuries from someone else’s carelessness.
Can a contract say I don’t have to mitigate damages?
While contracts can set out many terms, they usually can’t completely get rid of the duty to mitigate damages, especially if it leads to unfair results. The law generally requires some effort to keep losses from getting out of hand.
What if I’m too poor to take steps to mitigate?
Financial hardship can be a factor in deciding if your efforts to mitigate were reasonable. If you genuinely couldn’t afford to take certain steps, a court might consider that when looking at your situation.
Who has to prove that I didn’t try to mitigate?
Usually, the person being sued (the defendant) has to prove that the injured party (the plaintiff) didn’t take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. They need to show evidence that you could have done more to reduce the harm.