It is a broadly accepted principle of damages under New York tort law that no recovery should be allowed for losses in which the person injured could have prevented by reasonable efforts and expenditures. Mayes Co. v. State, 18 NY2d 549, 554 (1966); Wilmot v. State, 32 NY2d 164, 168 (1973). The party seeking damages is under a legal duty to make a reasonable effort to avoid consequences of the act complained of. People’s Gas v. State, 189 App Div 421, 424 (4th Dept. 1919). There rests on the party seeking damages the active duty of making reasonable efforts to render the injury as light as possible. Hamilton v. McPherson, 28 NY 72, 77 (1863). This duty is codified in Pattern Jury Instruction (PJI) 2:325. The burden of proof rests upon the party asserting that damages were not reasonably mitigated by the party claiming injury. Schultz v. Excelsior Orthopedics, 129 AD3d 1606 (4th Dept. 2015).

A review of the reported decisions on point reveals that issues of mitigation of damages are often litigated in architectural and legal malpractice cases, but less so in medical malpractice cases. Perhaps this is because the damages in a medical malpractice case are more likely to occur at a single point in time. Nonetheless, the cases related to the other professions are a useful source of understanding the principles involved.