Damages
Damages is where you put a number on the tort.
20. Damages
Tort damages are typically compensatory, with nominal or punitive damages available in limited situations. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 901-10 (1979); DAN B. DOBBS, ET AL., THE LAW OF TORTS § 479-86 (2d ed.).
- Most tort damages are compensatory.
- Compensatory damages may be general or special, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, property damage, loss of enjoyment, and loss of consortium.
- Nominal damages may be available in limited circumstances, such as to vindicate rights in some intentional torts actions without actual injury.
- Punitive damages may be available to punish tortfeasors for egregious, malicious, reckless, or intentional misconduct.
- Punitive damages are not typically available by themselves, but instead must be added to nominal or compensatory damages.
- The amount of punitive damages is tied to the amount of compensatory or nominal damages.
- The amount of punitive damages may be limited by statute or constitutional law.
- Many jurisdictions today, including Nevada, limit common law damages rules with statutory caps on various types of damage awards.
- The Nevada FLE does not require recall of specific caps on damages in Nevada or any other state.
- Nor does the Nevada FLE test the constitutional rules governing how limits on punitive damages are calculated.
Most tort recovery is compensatory, split into special (itemizable economic) and general (intangible) damages. Nominal damages vindicate a right without actual harm, and punitive damages never stand alone.
Damages is where you put a number on the tort. Most tort recovery is compensatory: money meant to restore the plaintiff to the position she would have occupied if the tort had not happened. The examiner splits compensatory damages into two buckets. Special damages are the out-of-pocket, measurable losses you can itemize with receipts and bills: medical expenses, property damage, lost earnings. General damages are the intangible harms that flow naturally from the tort but resist a price tag: pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium. Both are compensatory; the difference is whether the loss is itemizable.
Nominal damages are a small, symbolic sum awarded to vindicate a violated right when the plaintiff proves the tort but cannot show actual harm. They live mostly in certain intentional torts (a harmless trespass, for example), and they are not available where the cause of action itself requires proof of actual injury, as ordinary negligence does.
Punitive damages punish a defendant for egregious, malicious, reckless, or intentional misconduct. The single rule the examiner wants you to carry is that punitive damages do not stand alone: they must be added to an award of compensatory or nominal damages, and their amount is tied to that underlying award.
Punitive damages are never available by themselves; they must attach to a compensatory or nominal award, and their amount is tied to that award. Malice alone does not let them stand on their own.
The exam does not ask you to recall any specific dollar cap, and it does not test the constitutional math for how a punitive limit is calculated. Any option turning on a number ceiling or a fixed ratio is a decoy.
Compensatory has two buckets: special is the receipt pile (medical bills, property damage, lost wages, things you can itemize); general is everything that hurts but has no invoice (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, loss of consortium).
"Punitive piggybacks." Punitive damages never ride alone.
They must climb onto a compensatory or nominal award, and their size is tied to that ride.
"Nominal vindicates." Nominal damages prove the right, not the loss.
Reach for them when the tort is complete but the harm is zero, and only where the tort does not require actual injury.
Ignore the dollar sign.
Specific caps and the constitutional punitive math are out of scope, so any option that turns on a number ceiling or a fixed ratio is a decoy.
A driver runs a red light and T-bones a delivery van, breaking the van driver's leg. The van driver racks up 30,000 dollars in hospital bills and 5,000 dollars in repairs, and she endures months of pain and limited mobility.
Sort the recovery. The hospital bills and the repair costs are special damages: itemizable, out-of-pocket losses. The pain and the lost mobility are general damages: real harm, no invoice. Both are compensatory.
The plaintiff also asks for punitive damages, arguing the driver was texting. Even if the conduct were egregious enough to support punishment, punitive damages cannot stand on their own; here they would attach to the compensatory award and be measured against it.
If a distractor offered a specific dollar ceiling or a fixed multiple of the compensatory award as the controlling rule, ignore it: the exam does not test caps or the constitutional ratio.
An option keys the answer to a specific damage cap, a fixed statutory dollar figure, or a constitutional punitive ratio.
Both specific caps and the constitutional punitive math are excluded from FLE scope. The tested point is only that punitive attaches to, and is tied to, the underlying award, never the ceiling or the ratio.An option lets punitive damages stand on their own because the conduct was malicious or egregious.
Malice supports punitive damages only when they are added to a compensatory or nominal award; punitive damages are never available by themselves.An option mislabels an itemizable loss as general (or an intangible loss as special), or offers nominal damages in a claim that requires proof of actual harm.
Special damages are the itemizable economic bucket and general damages are the intangible bucket; nominal damages vindicate a right only where actual injury is not an element.An option reaches the correct yes/no but grounds it in a wrong rule, such as denying punitive because 'punitive damages are never allowed in tort.'
Name the operative rule: punitive damages are available for egregious conduct but must attach to a compensatory or nominal award; the outcome must rest on that rule, not a false absolute.the call asks what kind of damages the plaintiff can recover, how to classify a listed loss, or whether a punitive request can stand.
When the stem lists itemizable losses (bills, repair costs, lost wages) next to intangible ones (pain, distress, loss of consortium), it is testing the special-versus-general split.
When the stem says the conduct was malicious or egregious but pairs it with no actual harm or no other award, it is testing the punitive-must-attach rule.
And when an option hands you a dollar ceiling or a fixed ratio, recognize the out-of-scope decoy and strike it on sight.
A delivery driver was injured when a motorist negligently ran a red light and struck her van. At trial she proved 30,000 dollars in hospital bills and 5,000 dollars to repair the van, and she testified about the months of pain and the loss of her favorite recreational activities. Her lawyer asked the court to instruct the jury on which losses are special compensatory damages and which are general compensatory damages.
Which of the driver's losses are properly classified as special compensatory damages?
A homeowner sued a contractor for an intentional tort after the contractor deliberately destroyed a garden wall out of spite. The jury awarded the homeowner compensatory damages for the cost of rebuilding the wall and found that the contractor had acted maliciously. The homeowner also requested punitive damages.
May the court award punitive damages in addition to the compensatory award?
A cyclist sued a motorist for negligence after a near-miss in which the motorist swerved close to her. The cyclist proved that the motorist drove carelessly but conceded that she suffered no physical injury and no measurable loss of any kind. She asked the court to award nominal damages so that the motorist's carelessness would be formally recognized.
Is the cyclist likely to recover nominal damages on her negligence claim?
A patron sued a nightclub bouncer for an intentional tort after the bouncer, acting out of personal hostility, shoved him to the ground. The jury awarded the patron compensatory damages and, finding the bouncer's conduct egregious, returned a separate punitive award. The bouncer challenged the punitive award, contending the jury should not have been allowed to set its amount on the facts presented.
On what basis is the amount of the punitive award properly determined?