A claim can lose value if an injured person lets avoidable losses pile up. That can mean a smaller settlement or verdict, even when someone else clearly caused the accident. At its core, mitigation of damages is the legal rule that a person who has been harmed must take reasonable steps to limit the extra harm after the incident, rather than letting medical bills, wage loss, or property damage grow unnecessarily.

The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. An injured person usually is not expected to take risky measures, undergo unwanted treatment, or spend money they do not have. But they generally should follow sensible medical advice, attend appointments, look for suitable work if able, and avoid choices that make the injury worse. In a crash on I-5 during dense fog, for example, delaying basic treatment for a clearly worsening back injury could become an issue later.

In an Oregon injury claim, the defense may argue that part of the loss came from the injured person's own failure to mitigate, not from the original negligence. If that argument succeeds, the recoverable damages may be reduced. That is different from comparative negligence, which looks at fault for causing the accident itself. Mitigation focuses on what happened afterward and whether the added loss could reasonably have been avoided.