CACI 3930 Mitigation of Damages (Personal Injury)
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
3930 Mitigation of Damages (Personal Injury)
If you decide [name of defendant] is responsible for the original harm, [name of plaintiff] is not entitled to recover damages for harm that [name of defendant] proves [name of plaintiff] could have avoided with reasonable efforts or expenditures.
You should consider the reasonableness of [name of plaintiff]’s efforts in light of the circumstances facing [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] at the time, including [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] ability to make the efforts or expenditures without undue risk or hardship.
If [name of plaintiff] made reasonable efforts to avoid harm, then your award should include reasonable amounts that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] spent for this purpose.
Sources and Authority
•“It has been the policy of the courts to promote the mitigation of damages. The doctrine applies in tort, wilful as well as negligent. A plaintiff cannot be compensated for damages which he could have avoided by reasonable effort or expenditures.” (Green v. Smith (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 392, 396 [67 Cal.Rptr. 796], internal citations omitted.)
•“The frequent statement of the principle in the terms of a ‘duty’ imposed on the injured party has been criticized on the theory that a breach of the ‘duty’ does not give rise to a correlative right of action. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the wrongdoer is not required to compensate the injured party for damages which are avoidable by reasonable effort on the latter’s part.” (Green, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at p. 396, internal citations omitted.)
•“The reasonableness of the efforts of the injured party must be judged in the light of the situation confronting him at the time the loss was threatened and not by the judgment of hindsight. The fact that reasonable measures other than the one taken would have avoided damage is not, in and of itself, proof of the fact that the one taken, though unsuccessful, was unreasonable. ‘If a choice of two reasonable courses presents itself, the person whose wrong forced the choice cannot complain that one rather than the other is chosen.’ The standard by which the reasonableness of the injured party’s efforts is to be measured is not as high as the standard required in other areas of law. It is sufficient if he acts reasonably and with due diligence, in good faith.” (Green, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at pp. 396–397, internal citations omitted.)
•“The correct rule is that an injured person must use reasonable diligence in caring for his injuries. What is reasonable diligence depends upon all the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no hard and fast rule that the injured person must seek medical care of a particular type. Self-care may be reasonable under the circumstances, and the jury should be so instructed where that factor is relevant.” (Christiansen v. Hollings (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 332, 346 [112 P.2d 723], internal citations omitted.)
•“ ‘The rule of mitigation of damages has no application where its effect would be to require the innocent party to sacrifice and surrender important and valuable rights.’ ” (Valle de Oro Bank v. Gamboa (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1691 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 329], internal citations omitted.)
•“The duty to minimize damages does not require an injured person to do what is unreasonable or impracticable, and, consequently, when expenditures are necessary for minimization of damages, the duty does not run to a person who is financially unable to make such expenditures.” (Valencia v. Shell Oil Co. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 840, 846 [147 P.2d 558], internal citations omitted.)
•“Contributory negligence was closely allied and easily confused with the rule of mitigation of damages, on which the jury was also instructed. Both doctrines involved the plaintiff’s duty to act reasonably. Contributory negligence was concerned with the plaintiff’s negligence before being injured, while the mitigation rule was concerned with a lack of due care after the injury. The effect of contributory negligence was to bar all recovery by the plaintiff. In contrast, a plaintiff’s failure to mitigate barred recovery of only the portion of damages which could have been avoided by ordinary care after the injury.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 874–875 [148 Cal.Rptr. 355, 582 P.2d 946], internal citations omitted.)
•“ ‘The rule of [mitigation of damages] comes into play after a legal wrong has occurred, but while some damages may still be averted … .’ ” (Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1066 [232 Cal.Rptr. 528, 728 P.2d 1163], internal citations omitted.)
•“[W]hile the burden of proving the extent of injury … actually incurred as a result of a defendant’s tortious conduct lies with the plaintiff, the burden of proving the plaintiff failed to act reasonably in limiting his or her consequential damages—that is, failed to mitigate damages—is on the defendant … .” (Jackson v. Yarbray (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 75, 97 [101 Cal.Rptr.3d 303].)
•“One who contributes to damage cannot escape liability because the proportionate contribution may not be accurately measured. It is incumbent upon the party alleging injury to prove the amount of damages. Respondent sustained that burden in this case. If the damages proven could be reduced proportionately, that burden rested upon appellant.” (Oakland v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [118 P.2d 328], internal citations omitted.)
•“It is true that plaintiff is in duty bound to minimize his damage in any way that he reasonably can, and if he negligently refuses to do so he cannot recover for that which he might have prevented. It is for appellant to establish that the steps taken by plaintiff to so minimize his loss or damage falls short of the obligation so fixed. In other words, the burden is on defendant to establish matters asserted by him in mitigation or reduction of the amount of plaintiff’s damage, and defendant here has not met that burden.” (McNary v. Hanley (1933) 131 Cal.App. 188, 190 [20 P.2d 966].)