mitigation of damages instruction in Illinois

2002Fisher v. Slager, 201 Ill.

2002Fisher v. Slager , 201 Ill.App.3d 480 , 559 N.E.2d 118 (1990).

2014See Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 543 ; Schuler, 313 Ill.

2014See Heastie, 22 226 Ill. 2d at 543 ; Schuler, 313 Ill.

2014Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 274 . ¶ 41 After reviewing the record in the present case, we find that the mitigation of damages instruction was supported by the evidence and was, therefore, properly given.

2014Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 274 . ¶ 40 After reviewing the record in the present case, we find that the mitigation of damages instruction was supported by the evidence and was, therefore, properly given.

2021App. 3d 285, 290-91 (1998). ¶ 32 The mitigation of damages doctrine “long constituted an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the defendant.” Takiff Properties Group Ltd. #2 v. GTI Life, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 171477 , ¶ 15.

2020As previously stated, this court “has no right to enter a [JNOV], if there is any evidence, together with reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, demonstrating a substantial factual dispute, or where the assessment of credibility of the witnesses or the determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive to the outcome.” Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 454 . ¶ 176 “Pursuant to the common-law doctrine of mitigation of damages, a plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim cannot recover losses that it could have reasonably avoided.” Takiff Properties Group Ltd. #2 v. GTI Life, Inc., 2018 IL

2011In addition to the individual inquiries necessary to establish the elements of the plaintiff's two claims, the defendant argues individual inquiries are required to determine whether the doctrine of voluntary payment or the mitigation of damages defense applies. ¶ 20 In support of its contention that common issues do not predominate and that individual issues must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, rendering class certification improper, the defendant relies on Key v. Jewel Cos., 176 Ill.App.3d 91 , 125 Ill.Dec. 652 , 530 N.E.2d 1061 (1988), and Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 374 Ill.

2011In addition to the individual inquiries necessary to establish the elements of the plaintiff's two claims, the defendant argues individual inquiries are required to determine whether the doctrine of voluntary payment or the mitigation of damages defense applies. ¶ 20 In support of its contention that common issues do not predominate and that individual issues must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, rendering class certification improper, the defendant relies on Key v. Jewel Cos., 176 Ill.App.3d 91 , 125 Ill.Dec. 652 , 530 N.E.2d 1061 (1988), and Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 374 Ill.

2011In addition to the individual inquiries necessary to establish the elements of the plaintiff's two claims, the defendant argues individual inquiries are required to determine whether the doctrine of voluntary payment or the mitigation of damages defense applies. ¶ 20 In support of its contention that common issues do not predominate and that individual issues must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, rendering class certification improper, the defendant relies on Key v. Jewel Cos., 176 Ill.App.3d 91 , 125 Ill.Dec. 652 , 530 N.E.2d 1061 (1988), and Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 374 Ill.

2011In addition to the individual inquiries necessary to establish the elements of the plaintiff's two claims, the defendant argues individual inquiries are required to determine whether the doctrine of voluntary payment or the mitigation of damages defense applies. ¶ 20 In support of its contention that common issues do not predominate and that individual issues must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, rendering class certification improper, the defendant relies on Key v. Jewel Cos., 176 Ill.App.3d 91 , 125 Ill.Dec. 652 , 530 N.E.2d 1061 (1988), and Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 374 Ill.

2006Malanowski, 332 Ill.App.3d at 15 , 265 Ill.Dec. 596 , 772 N.E.2d 967 .

2006Malanowski, 332 Ill.

2000Aimonette, 214 Ill.

2000Aimonette, 214 Ill.

1998Generally, the doctrine of mitigation of damages "imposes a duty upon the injured party 'to exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care in attempting to minimize the damages after injury has been inflicted.'" Grothen v. Marshall Field & Co. , 253 Ill.

1998Generally, the doctrine of mitigation of damages “imposes a duty upon the injured party ‘to exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care in attempting to minimize damages after injury has been inflicted.’” Grothen v. Marshall Field & Co., 253 Ill.

2020As previously stated, this court “has no right to enter a [JNOV], if there is any evidence, together with reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, demonstrating a substantial factual dispute, or where the assessment of credibility of the witnesses or the determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive to the outcome.” Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 454 . ¶ 176 “Pursuant to the common-law doctrine of mitigation of damages, a plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim cannot recover losses that it could have reasonably avoided.” Takiff Properties Group Ltd. #2 v. GTI Life, Inc., 2018 IL

1993(Auton v. Logan Landfill, Inc. (1984), 105 Ill. 2d 537, 550 .) In essence, Field’s curious failure to recognize the distinction between contributory negligence and mitigation of damages resulted in the jury’s inability to consider the mitigation of damages issue.

1991App.3d at 225 , 144 Ill.Dec. 493 , 555 N.E.2d 1012 ; Alden Press, Inc. v. Block & Co. (1988), 173 Ill.App.3d 251, 260 , 123 Ill.Dec. 26 , 527 N.E.2d 489 .) We agree with defendants that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support this mitigation of damages instruction.

1991App.3d at 225 , 144 Ill.Dec. 493 , 555 N.E.2d 1012 ; Alden Press, Inc. v. Block & Co. (1988), 173 Ill.App.3d 251, 260 , 123 Ill.Dec. 26 , 527 N.E.2d 489 .) We agree with defendants that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support this mitigation of damages instruction.

1991App.3d at 225 , 144 Ill.Dec. 493 , 555 N.E.2d 1012 ; Alden Press, Inc. v. Block & Co. (1988), 173 Ill.App.3d 251, 260 , 123 Ill.Dec. 26 , 527 N.E.2d 489 .) We agree with defendants that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support this mitigation of damages instruction.

1991App.3d at 225 , 144 Ill.Dec. 493 , 555 N.E.2d 1012 ; Alden Press, Inc. v. Block & Co. (1988), 173 Ill.App.3d 251, 260 , 123 Ill.Dec. 26 , 527 N.E.2d 489 .) We agree with defendants that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support this mitigation of damages instruction.

1986On remand, the trial court will have "the same power over the record which it possessed before its decree *772 or judgment was rendered," including the power to allow amendment of an answer and the introduction of other evidence. ( Chickering v. Failes (1862), 29 Ill. 294, 303 ; see Crane Paper Stock Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry.

1906Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill., 155 ; Burroughs v. Clancey, 53 Ill., 30 ; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill., 96 .

1906Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill., 155 ; Burroughs v. Clancey, 53 Ill., 30 ; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill., 96 .

1906Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill., 155 ; Burroughs v. Clancey, 53 Ill., 30 ; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill., 96 .