When you are injured because of someone else’s negligence, your immediate focus is on recovery. You see doctors, follow treatment plans, and try to piece your life back together. Most people assume that if another party is 100% at fault for the accident, they are responsible for 100% of the consequences. While this assumption is often true, a complex legal principle known as the avoidable consequences doctrine can complicate matters.
This doctrine, a longstanding component of Massachusetts law, essentially states that an injured person cannot recover damages for any harm they could have reasonably avoided after the initial injury. It places a responsibility on the victim to act prudently to minimize their losses. If a defendant can prove you made your injuries worse through unreasonable action—or inaction—your compensation could be significantly reduced.
Understanding this rule is essential for protecting your rights after an accident. This article explains what the avoidable consequences doctrine is, how it works in practice, and what steps you can take to ensure you receive the full and fair compensation you deserve.
Navigating the Avoidable Consequences Doctrine in a Massachusetts Personal Injury Claim
At its core, the avoidable consequences doctrine is a rule that limits damages, not liability. It does not excuse the defendant for causing the initial accident. Instead, it focuses entirely on the plaintiff’s conduct after the injury occurs. The central question is: Did the injured person take reasonable steps to prevent their condition from worsening?
It is important to distinguish this from the concept of comparative negligence.
- Comparative Negligence deals with your actions leading up to the accident. For example, if you were speeding when another driver ran a red light and hit you, a jury might find you partially at fault for the crash itself. In Massachusetts, if you are found 51% or more at fault, you cannot recover any damages. If you are 50% or less at fault, your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault.
- The Avoidable Consequences Doctrine deals with your actions after the accident happened. It does not matter if the defendant was completely at fault for the incident. This doctrine examines whether you failed to act reasonably to care for your injuries, thereby increasing the total damages.
This principle is rooted in the idea of fairness and the prevention of economic waste. Tort law is designed to make an injured party whole again—not to provide a windfall. The law expects you to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances to keep your losses from spiraling unnecessarily.
The Plaintiff's Duty to Mitigate Damages After a Personal Injury
The avoidable consequences doctrine is the legal consequence of failing to uphold what is known as the duty to mitigate damages. "Mitigate" simply means to lessen or reduce the severity of something. After a personal injury, you have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to minimize your financial, physical, and emotional losses.
This does not mean you have to do everything possible, only what is reasonable. The standard of "reasonableness" is flexible and depends entirely on the specific facts of your case. A court will consider factors like your age, health, education, and financial circumstances when deciding if your actions were appropriate.
The duty to mitigate generally involves a few key areas:
- Seeking and Following Medical Advice: The most common application of this doctrine involves medical care. You are expected to seek prompt medical attention for your injuries and follow the treatment plan prescribed by your healthcare providers. This includes attending follow-up appointments, taking prescribed medication, and participating in physical therapy.
- Mitigating Lost Income: If you are unable to work, you can claim lost wages as part of your damages. However, your duty to mitigate requires you to make a reasonable effort to return to work once you are medically cleared to do so. If you can no longer perform your old job, you may be expected to look for other suitable employment.
- Protecting Your Property: In cases involving property damage, such as a car accident, you have a duty to prevent further damage. For example, you should move your damaged vehicle to a safe location or cover a broken window to prevent water damage.
The key word is always "reasonable." You are not required to undergo experimental, dangerous, or excessively painful medical procedures. You are also not expected to accept any job offer, only one that is suitable for your skills and physical limitations. The law recognizes that personal circumstances, including financial hardship or deeply held personal beliefs, can influence what is considered a reasonable course of action.
Practical Examples of the Avoidable Consequences Rule
To better understand how this legal defense works, consider a few common scenarios where a defendant might argue that the plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages.
Failing to Seek Prompt Medical Attention
Imagine you are in a rear-end collision on the Massachusetts Turnpike. You feel some neck stiffness but decide it is probably just whiplash that will go away on its own. You wait a month before seeing a doctor. By then, the minor strain has developed into a more serious disc issue requiring extensive treatment.
The defendant’s insurance company could argue that if you had sought prompt medical attention, a doctor might have prescribed a neck brace and physical therapy, preventing the condition from worsening. They would contend they are responsible for the damages related to the initial neck strain but not for the additional costs and suffering caused by the worsened condition that you could have reasonably avoided.
Ignoring a Doctor’s Treatment Plan
Suppose you suffer a serious knee injury in a slip-and-fall accident. Your orthopedic surgeon recommends a six-week course of physical therapy to regain strength and mobility. You attend the first few sessions but then stop going because you find them inconvenient. As a result, your knee remains stiff, and you develop a permanent limp.
In your personal injury lawsuit, you would claim damages for a permanent injury. However, the defense attorney would hire a medical expert to testify that had you completed the prescribed physical therapy, you likely would have made a much fuller recovery. A jury might then reduce your award for future pain and suffering, concluding that a portion of your permanent disability was the result of your own failure to follow reasonable medical advice.
Unreasonable Refusal of Surgery
This is a more complex area. Generally, you are not required to undergo a risky or invasive surgery to mitigate damages. However, if a doctor recommends a low-risk, common procedure with a high probability of success and you refuse it without a good reason, a court may limit your damages.
For example, if a surgeon recommends a routine arthroscopic procedure to repair a torn meniscus, and you refuse it based on a generalized fear of surgery rather than a specific medical or religious reason, the defense could argue you failed to mitigate. The court might calculate your damages as if you had the surgery and achieved the expected positive outcome, rather than awarding compensation based on your ongoing, unimproved condition.
Not Attempting to Return to Work
If an injury leaves you unable to perform your previous job, you have a duty to seek alternative employment if you are capable. Consider an accountant who injures their back and can no longer sit at a desk for eight hours a day. Their doctor clears them for part-time work or a job that allows for more movement.
If the accountant makes no effort to find a new job and instead claims total future lost wages based on their old salary, a defendant will challenge it. They will argue that the accountant could have earned income in another capacity. The recoverable lost wages would likely be reduced to the difference between their previous salary and what they could have reasonably earned in a new role.
The Burden of Proof: Who Needs to Prove You Failed to Mitigate?
This is a very important point for anyone with a personal injury claim: The defendant has the burden of proof. It is not your job to prove you did everything perfectly. It is the defendant’s responsibility to convince the court or jury of three things:
- That you failed to take reasonable steps to minimize your damages.
- That if you had taken those reasonable steps, your damages would have been lower.
- The specific amount by which your damages would have been reduced.
This is a high bar for the defense to clear. They cannot simply speculate that you could have done more. They must present concrete evidence, often through expert testimony from doctors or vocational specialists to support their claim. This is a key reason why having an experienced personal injury attorney is so valuable.
How a Skilled Personal Injury Lawyer Defends Against This Tactic in Massachusetts
The avoidable consequences doctrine is a common defense strategy used by insurance companies to devalue legitimate claims. A knowledgeable personal injury lawyer anticipates this tactic and builds a strong case from the very beginning to counter it.
Documenting Everything
An experienced attorney will instruct you on the importance of meticulous record-keeping. This includes keeping a log of all doctor’s appointments, therapy sessions, and mileage to and from medical providers. By documenting your consistent effort to follow your treatment plan, your lawyer can present clear evidence that you acted reasonably to mitigate your damages.
Challenging the "Reasonableness" Standard
What an insurance company considers unreasonable may be perfectly justifiable. A good personal injury attorney can effectively argue why your decisions were reasonable under your specific circumstances. For example:
- Financial Hardship: If you could not afford a specific treatment or medication, your lawyer can argue that your failure to obtain it was not unreasonable.
- Conflicting Medical Opinions: If you sought a second opinion and received different advice, your attorney can show that you were making an informed choice between valid medical options.
- Significant Risks: Your attorney can present evidence about the risks, pain, or low success rate of a proposed surgery to justify your refusal to undergo it.
Using Expert Testimony
A skilled lawyer will combat the defense’s experts with their own. Your attorney can retain respected medical professionals to testify that the treatment you received was appropriate and that alternative treatments suggested by the defense would not have significantly changed your outcome. Similarly, a vocational expert can testify that there were no suitable jobs available for you, countering a defense claim that you failed to mitigate lost wages.
Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, is One Phone Call Away
The avoidable consequences doctrine presents an additional challenge to personal injury claims in Massachusetts. It allows defense attorneys and insurance companies to scrutinize your every move after an accident in an attempt to pay you less than you deserve. Navigating these arguments requires legal skill, strategic thinking, and a thorough understanding of tort law.
At Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of injured people. We understand the tactics defendants use and know how to build a powerful case that demonstrates you acted reasonably at every turn. We will handle the legal complexities so you can focus on what is most important—your recovery.
If you have been injured in an accident, do not let a defense argument about mitigating damages diminish your claim. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your case.