We pose two different scenarios which both include the application of the doctrine of avoidable consequences. In the first, a person is refused damages for failing to mitigate their physical damages, and in the second, the same person is refused damages for failing to mitigate their emotional trauma. The juxtaposition of the two scenarios is meant to elicit a gut response from listeners as to whether they feel differently applying this doctrine to emotional versus physical trauma. Then, we provide the relevant doctrinal definitions and Professor Glenn Cohen’s comments on forced medical interventions. Next, we ask Professor Michael Stein about how the differing conceptions of mental and physical harm affect the legal system’s treatment of them. We then end with a discussion between group members regarding our thoughts on the importance of differences between mental and physical damages and how these differences make the application of the avoidable consequences doctrine more complex.
Thank you to our interviewees: Professor Glen Cohen and Professor Michael Stein.
