The duty to mitigate damages Arizona law places on every injured person is easy to overlook until an insurance adjuster raises it. It means you’re expected to take reasonable steps to avoid making your own injuries worse. Skip that duty, and an insurer can argue the portion of your damages that resulted from your own inaction shouldn’t be your recovery, they should be yours to absorb.
Where this doctrine comes from
Arizona courts describe this as the doctrine of avoidable consequences. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the concept directly in Law v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, 157 Ariz. 147 (1988), distinguishing it clearly from comparative negligence. Comparative negligence looks at fault for causing the accident itself. Mitigation looks at conduct after the injury, whether the injured person acted reasonably to limit how bad things got, and treats that as a separate question entirely.
That distinction matters because the two doctrines can apply to the exact same case without conflicting. You can be entirely blameless for causing a crash and still have a defendant argue, separately, that you didn’t mitigate your injuries afterward.
What mitigation actually requires
The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. Following your doctor’s treatment plan, attending physical therapy, and not delaying necessary care are the core expectations. You’re not required to undergo risky surgery or expensive treatment beyond what a reasonable person in your position would choose.
Where duty to mitigate damages Arizona disputes actually arise, it’s usually one of a few recurring patterns: skipping follow-up appointments, stopping physical therapy early, delaying treatment for weeks after the accident, or returning to activities a doctor specifically advised against. Insurers look for gaps in treatment records because gaps are the easiest evidence to point to.
What it doesn’t require
Financial hardship is a real defense here. If you couldn’t afford a recommended treatment, that’s relevant to whether skipping it was unreasonable. Courts also don’t expect you to have known better in the moment than your treating physician did at the time. The defense carries the burden of proving both that a reasonable alternative existed and that you unreasonably failed to take it.
The bottom line
Arizona’s duty to mitigate doesn’t ask for perfection, only reasonable effort. Following through on treatment, keeping appointments, and documenting any barriers to care, like cost or access, protects the value of your claim far better than trying to explain gaps after the fact.
Frequently asked questions
It can. An insurer may argue that skipping recommended treatment worsened your condition, reducing the damages tied to that avoidable worsening.
No. Comparative negligence concerns fault for the accident itself, while mitigation concerns your conduct afterward in limiting your own damages.
Financial hardship is relevant to whether skipping treatment was unreasonable, and documenting that barrier can protect your claim.
Ready to meet your legal match?
Right case, right lawyer, zero awkward first dates. Tell us what happened and we’ll introduce you to attorneys who actually fit.
Get MatchedKeep reading
This article is for general informational purposes only and doesn’t constitute legal advice. Whether a specific action satisfies the duty to mitigate depends on individual medical facts.