Opinion ID: 2341261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mitigation of Damages Properly Limited to Events After February 1, 1962.

Text: Appellants contend that the trial judge erred in limiting (by paragraph III of the Pre-Trial Order of June 9, 1970) their right to introduce evidence in mitigation of Sagner's damages to his actions or inaction after February 1, 1962. The rights and duties of the parties prior to that date were resolved by this Court in Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, Inc., supra . Appellees there contended that Sagner was estopped from asserting his right, if any, to cancel the syndication agreement by virtue of his actions and inaction prior to February 1, 1962. We did not agree. In addition, the rule adopted by Judge Jones is supported by 79 A.L.R.2d 725, (1961) Livestock  Loss or Injury  Damages § 14, Duty to reduce damages (an authority relied on by appellants in their brief): The general rule that one who is injured by the wrongful act of another is bound to exercise reasonable care to avoid loss or to minimize the resulting damage, and, to the extent that his damages are the result of his active enhancement thereof, or are due to his failure to exercise such care, he cannot recover, has been applied in cases involving actions for the loss, injury or destruction of livestock. (Emphasis supplied). The wrongful act of another  the refusal by appellants to return Saggy to Sagner  did not occur until February 1, 1962. In arguing this point they also rely on Hoff v. Lester, 25 Wash.2d 86, 168 P.2d 409 (1946), a replevin action in which defendant was permitted to mitigate plaintiff's damages by evidence that he failed to avail himself of his right to obtain possession of his property by filing a bond. Under Judge Jones' ruling such proof could have been offered in this case. Under her charge  which included a correct statement of the law on mitigation  this point could have been argued. We find no error in the trial court's rulings on this question.