What is the test for mitigation of damages in a motor vehicle accident?

[Citations.] [] In assessing a claim that the jury's award of damages is excessive, we do not reassess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. To the contrary, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, accepting every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor." (Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1078.)

As for the rule regarding mitigation of damages, it has long been said that "the wrongdoer is not required to compensate the injured party for damages which are avoidable by reasonable effort on the latter's part," but "the question whether an injured party acted reasonably to mitigate damages is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact," "[t]he standard by which the reasonableness of the injured party's efforts is to be measured is not as high as the standard required in other areas of law," and "[i]t is sufficient if he acts reasonably and with due diligence, in good faith." (Green v. Smith (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 392, 396-397.)