The avoidable consequences rule is a concept in United States jurisprudence which comes from a common-law rule barring recovery of damages that a tort victim "could have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort." This concept recognizes as fact, that if a plaintiff is injured by a defendant, that the plaintiff must take reasonable steps to avoid aggravating the injuries caused by the defendant.
For example, if one thinks of a surgery as highly dangerous and likely to cause a greater likelihood of injury and damages, perhaps because the surgery itself is unreasonable, a plaintiff must take reasonable steps to avoid aggravating the injuries. Thus the duty to mitigate is exercised when a reasonable person declines risky surgery for fear that it may make the entire injury worse.
Religious beliefs and reasonability.
Religious beliefs may not be considered when determining whether a plaintiff with a duty to mitigate injuries, acted unreasonably when they failed to mitigate injuries on the grounds that it was against their religion.
 ;templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" / ;The [...] court, in accepting the sincerity of plaintiff['s] [...] beliefs as a given and asking the jury to consider the reasonableness of her actions only in the context of her own religion, effectively provided government endorsement to those beliefs. American courts have no business endorsing or condemning the truth or falsity of anyone's religious beliefs.
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;