mitigation of damages doctrine in Texas

2025The mitigation of damages doctrine “requires an injured party to use reasonable efforts to avoid or prevent losses.” E.L. & Assocs., Inc. v. Pabon, 525 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) The doctrine requires “the injured party to exercise reasonable care to minimize its damages if damages can be avoided with only slight expense and reasonable effort.” Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 687, 708 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).

2013“The mitigation of damages doctrine requires an injured party to exercise reasonable care to minimize its damages if damages can be avoided with only slight expense and reasonable effort.” Id., citing Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 687, 708 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied.).

2025The mitigation of damages doctrine “requires an injured party to use reasonable efforts to avoid or prevent losses.” E.L. & Assocs., Inc. v. Pabon, 525 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) The doctrine requires “the injured party to exercise reasonable care to minimize its damages if damages can be avoided with only slight expense and reasonable effort.” Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 687, 708 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).

2025Nevertheless, the doctrine of mitigation of damages, applicable in breach of contract and tort cases, “requires an injured party to use reasonable efforts to avoid or prevent losses.” E.L. & Assocs., Inc. v. Pabon, 525 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see generally Donohue v. Dominguez, 486 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied) (“[A] civil assault claim is still a ‘tort’; it is called ‘an intentional tort.’” (quoting Gordon, 434 S.W.3d at 7 588–94)).

2009See Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1992) (a plaintiff’s failure to follow doctor’s orders post-accident entitles defendant to mitigation instruction); Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Serv., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex. 1967) (mitigation instruction proper where plaintiff’s failure to follow competent medical advice aggravated or enhanced the injuries he sustained in a collision); Young v. Thota, M.D. , ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 02-05-350-CV, 2008 WL 4938314, at *4-5 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2008, no pet. h.) (mitigation instruction proper if patient failed to follow post-admission

2009See Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1992) (a plaintiff’s failure to follow doctor's orders post-accident entitles defendant to mitigation instruction); Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Serv., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex.1967) (mitigation instruction proper where plaintiff’s failure to follow competent medical advice aggravated or enhanced the injuries he sustained in a collision); Young v. Thota, M.D., 271 S.W.3d 822, 829-31 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet. h.) (mitigation instruction proper if patient failed to follow post-admission instructions).

2024Bank/Fort Worth, N.A., 759 S.W.2d 723, 735 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied)); Harris Cnty. v. Smoker, 934 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2018“The mitigation of damages doctrine requires an injured party to exercise reasonable care to minimize its damages, if the damages can be avoided with only slight expense and reasonable effort.” Harris County v. Smoker, 934 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2024“A trial court may refuse to submit an issue only if no evidence exists to warrant its submission.” Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 243 (Tex. 1992). 21 We address the other arguments raised in Zoanni’s first issue on remand later in this opinion. 60 The mitigation of damages doctrine, which is also referred to as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, “requires an injured party to use reasonable efforts to avoid or prevent losses.” E.L. & Associates, Inc. v. Pabon, 525 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Pulaski Bank & Trust Co. v. Tex. Am.

2009See Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1992) (a plaintiff’s failure to follow doctor's orders post-accident entitles defendant to mitigation instruction); Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Serv., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex.1967) (mitigation instruction proper where plaintiff’s failure to follow competent medical advice aggravated or enhanced the injuries he sustained in a collision); Young v. Thota, M.D., 271 S.W.3d 822, 829-31 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet. h.) (mitigation instruction proper if patient failed to follow post-admission instructions).

2017See id. at 560 (noting that doctrine of mitigation of damages is “typically applied to a post-occurrence action, such as when a plaintiff fails to follow his doctor’s treatment instructions”); id. at 562 (distinguishing harm for which recovery of damages is sought, such as personal injury or death, from the underlying occurrence, such as a car accident).

2017See id. at 560 (noting that doctrine of mitigation of damages is “typically applied to a post-occurrence action, such as when a plaintiff fails to follow his doctor’s treatment instructions”); id. at 562 (distinguishing harm for which recovery of damages is sought, such as personal injury or death, from the underlying occurrence, such as a car accident).

2008See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 360 F.2d 569, 573-74 (5th Cir. 1966) (permitting “non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge,” and further holding that as long as employee was “moonlighting before his unlawful discharge,” amounts earned in any “spare time employment” should not be used to reduce back-pay award). 7 App.—Austin 1951, no writ) (“By the weight of Texas authority, . . . the measure of recovery i

2008See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , 360 F.2d 569, 573-74 (5th Cir. 1966) (permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award). 8.

1995The mitigation-of-damages doctrine is based on the concept of avoidable consequences: a party may not recover damages that it could have avoided or minimized “at a trifling expense or with reasonable exertions.” Walker v. Salt Flat Water Co., 96 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex.1936); see also Copenhaver v. Berryman, 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1993The mitigation-of-damages doctrine is based on the concept of avoidable consequences: a party may not recover damages that it could have avoided or minimized "at a trifling expense or with reasonable exertions." Walker v. Salt Flat Water Co. , 96 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1936); see also Copenhaver v. Berryman , 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. Civ.

2019“The mitigation-of-damages rule prevents a party from recovering damages that result from a breach of contract that the non-breaching party could avoid by reasonable efforts.” Turner v. NJN Cotton Co., 485 S.W.3d 513, 523 (Tex. App.— Eastland 2015, pet. denied).

2017Turner v. NJN Cotton Co., 485 S.W.3d 513, 523 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. denied).

2009See Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1992) (a plaintiff’s failure to follow doctor’s orders post-accident entitles defendant to mitigation instruction); Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Serv., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex. 1967) (mitigation instruction proper where plaintiff’s failure to follow competent medical advice aggravated or enhanced the injuries he sustained in a collision); Young v. Thota, M.D. , ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 02-05-350-CV, 2008 WL 4938314, at *4-5 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2008, no pet. h.) (mitigation instruction proper if patient failed to follow post-admission

2009See Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1992) (a plaintiff’s failure to follow doctor's orders post-accident entitles defendant to mitigation instruction); Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Serv., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex.1967) (mitigation instruction proper where plaintiff’s failure to follow competent medical advice aggravated or enhanced the injuries he sustained in a collision); Young v. Thota, M.D., 271 S.W.3d 822, 829-31 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet. h.) (mitigation instruction proper if patient failed to follow post-admission instructions).

1995The mitigation-of-damages doctrine is based on the concept of avoidable consequences: a party may not recover damages that it could have avoided or minimized “at a trifling expense or with reasonable exertions.” Walker v. Salt Flat Water Co., 96 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex.1936); see also Copenhaver v. Berryman, 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1993The mitigation-of-damages doctrine is based on the concept of avoidable consequences: a party may not recover damages that it could have avoided or minimized "at a trifling expense or with reasonable exertions." Walker v. Salt Flat Water Co. , 96 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1936); see also Copenhaver v. Berryman , 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. Civ.

2025Nevertheless, the doctrine of mitigation of damages, applicable in breach of contract and tort cases, “requires an injured party to use reasonable efforts to avoid or prevent losses.” E.L. & Assocs., Inc. v. Pabon, 525 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see generally Donohue v. Dominguez, 486 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied) (“[A] civil assault claim is still a ‘tort’; it is called ‘an intentional tort.’” (quoting Gordon, 434 S.W.3d at 7 588–94)).

2024Bank/Fort Worth, N.A., 759 S.W.2d 723, 735 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied)); Harris Cnty. v. Smoker, 934 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2024Co., 759 S.W.2d at 735 (stating doctrine of mitigation of damages applies “only if the victim of the wrongdoer’s act has 24 Zoanni argues that Hogan failed to “mitigate his damages,” but the import of her claim appears to be not that Hogan failed to mitigate his damages after Zoanni made the defamatory statements, but rather that Hogan failed to establish that the alleged defamatory statements resulted in his claimed damages. 65 knowledge of the fact which makes avoidance of the consequences necessary, and if the damages can be avoided with only slight expense and reasonable effort”).