that could have been avoided if Cole had mitigated. A tenant’s proof that the landlord failed to use objectively reasonable efforts to fill the premises, standing alone, is not a bar to recovery. Rather, the landlord’s recovery is barred “only to the extent that damages reasonably could have been avoided.” Austin Hill Country, 948 S.W.2d at 299; see also Rauscher Pierce, 923 S.W.2d at 117 (“Appellant also had the burden of proving the amount the damages were increased by failure to mitigate, which it failed to meet.”). Thus, where a defendant proves failure to mitigate but not the amount of damages thát could have been avoided, it is not entitled to any reduction in damages. See Regency Advantage Ltd. P’ship v. Bingo Idea-Watauga, Inc., 928 S.W.2d 56, 62 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other
holding that evidence that plaintiff did not regularly perform her prescribed exercises was insufficient to support a mitigation of damages claim in the absence of physician testimony that she failed to mitigate her damages holding that plaintiff failed to mitigate front pay damages by refusing to take antidepressants holding that defendants failed to carry burden of proof to show that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages when among other things they offered no evidence contradicting the plaintiffs evidence holding in a landlordtenant dispute that even though defendant proved failure to mitigate damages because it did not also prove how much the plaintiffs damages increased by failure to mitigate the trial court did not err in refusing to reduce plaintiffs damages holding that inclusion of failure to mitigate damages as an issue in a final pretrial order saved the issue from waiver under rule 8c even though the defendant had failed to plead the issue