Comparative study of damages awards
Comparative Study of Damages Awards
Damages are monetary compensation awarded to a plaintiff for loss or injury suffered due to the defendant’s wrongful act. The aim is to put the injured party in the position they would have been had the tort not occurred.
There are different types of damages, mainly:
Compensatory Damages: To compensate actual loss (can be special or general damages).
Punitive (Exemplary) Damages: To punish the defendant for egregious conduct.
Nominal Damages: A small sum awarded when a legal wrong occurred but no substantial loss.
Aggravated Damages: Compensation for intangible injuries like humiliation.
Courts determine damages based on the facts and policy considerations, and different cases illustrate how these principles are applied.
Case 1: Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Context: This case laid down the foundational principle of remoteness in damages.
Facts: A miller’s crankshaft broke, and Baxendale, a carrier, delayed delivering it for repair. The miller claimed damages for loss of profits due to the delay.
Ruling: Damages must be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally from the breach or as may reasonably have been in the contemplation of both parties at contract formation.
Significance: Established that damages for loss must not be too remote; only losses reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract are recoverable.
In Tort: This principle also influences tort damages in terms of foreseeability of loss.
Case 2: Vaughan v. Menlove (1837)
Context: A negligence case that shaped the standard for care and damages.
Facts: Menlove built a haystack near Vaughan’s cottages, which caught fire due to negligence, damaging Vaughan’s property.
Ruling: Menlove was found liable because he did not exercise reasonable care.
Damages: Compensatory damages were awarded for the loss of property.
Significance: Established the “reasonable person” standard, which affects how damages are awarded by assessing the defendant's negligence degree.
Case 3: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
Context: Strict liability for damage caused by non-natural use of land.
Facts: Fletcher’s coal mine was flooded when Rylands’ reservoir burst.
Ruling: Rylands was liable regardless of negligence because he brought something likely to cause harm onto his land.
Damages: Fletcher was awarded full compensation for damage caused.
Significance: Strict liability allows full damages without needing proof of negligence, emphasizing the defendant’s responsibility.
Case 4: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Context: The birth of the modern negligence duty of care and its impact on damages.
Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a snail in her ginger beer and became ill.
Ruling: Established the “neighbour principle” – manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
Damages: She was entitled to damages for physical and mental harm caused.
Significance: Expanded the scope of recoverable damages by defining duty of care broadly, increasing the range of claimants who can seek compensation.
Case 5: Chaplin v. Hicks (1911)
Context: Damages for loss of chance.
Facts: Hicks promised Chaplin a chance to compete for a stage role but failed to hold the competition properly.
Ruling: Damages were awarded for the lost opportunity, not just actual loss.
Significance: Recognizes that damages may be awarded for loss of a chance or opportunity, broadening traditional compensatory damage concepts.
Summary Comparison:
| Case | Principle Established | Type of Damages Emphasized | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hadley v. Baxendale | Remoteness/Foreseeability of loss | Compensatory (foreseeable loss) | Only foreseeable losses recoverable |
| Vaughan v. Menlove | Reasonable person standard in negligence | Compensatory | Negligence assessed by reasonable care |
| Rylands v. Fletcher | Strict liability for hazardous use of land | Full compensatory | Liability without negligence, strict liability |
| Donoghue v. Stevenson | Duty of care in negligence | Compensatory | Broadened duty, expanding claims for damages |
| Chaplin v. Hicks | Damages for loss of chance | Compensatory (loss of opportunity) | Lost chance can be compensated |
Additional Points:
Assessment of Damages: Courts carefully evaluate the actual loss suffered, future consequences, and sometimes intangible losses like pain and suffering.
Mitigation: Plaintiffs must mitigate damages; failure may reduce awards.
Punitive Damages: Rare and only awarded where defendant’s conduct is particularly malicious or reckless.
Nominal Damages: Awarded where a breach occurred but no actual loss proven.
RELATED Blog
0 comments