Awarding Damages in Civil Cases: Legal Standards and Court Discretion

The legal meaning of awarding damages is the imposition of a financial liability on the defendant. It is the final step in the litigation process where a judge or jury determines the dollar value of the plaintiff’s loss. This award is legally enforceable, allowing the plaintiff to utilize various collection mechanisms if the defendant refuses to pay.

The primary purpose of awarding damages is restorative justice. Unlike criminal law, which seeks to punish, civil law seeks to balance the scales. By providing monetary relief, the system acknowledges the violation of a right and attempts to mitigate the economic and personal fallout of that violation.

Before the question of awarding damages arises, the court must first find the defendant liable. This requires proving that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty, and that the breach was the direct cause of the harm. Liability acts as the gatekeeper for any financial recovery.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the damages with reasonable certainty. A court will not award funds based on speculation. There must be a clear causal link between the defendant's act and the specific losses claimed.

The judicial determination of damages involves weighing evidence such as medical bills and expert testimony to calculate a fair financial remedy. SJKP LLP utilizes forensic economists and vocational experts to build a data driven narrative that justifies the amount requested. Testimony from the plaintiff regarding the impact on their daily life is also vital for the non-economic portion of the award.

In jury trials, the jury has broad discretion to decide the amount of damages awarded by the court. However, this is not a blank check. The judge provides instructions on the law, and if a jury's award is so high or so low that it shocks the conscience, the judge may intervene to adjust the amount.

Many states have passed laws that place a maximum limit on the amount of non-economic damages that can be awarded, particularly in medical malpractice or government liability cases.

A plaintiff has a legal duty to mitigate their damages. If a party fails to take reasonable steps to minimize their loss, for example, by refusing necessary medical care, the court may reduce the final awarding damages amount accordingly.

If the plaintiff is found to be partially responsible for their own injury, the court will reduce the award by their percentage of fault. For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 but is found to be 20 percent at fault, the final court-awarded damages will be $80,000.

If a judge believes a jury's award is excessive based on the evidence, they may use a process called remittitur. The judge gives the plaintiff a choice: accept a lower, reduced amount or go through a new trial. Conversely, in rare cases of additur, a judge might increase an insufficient award, though this is not permitted in federal courts.

Either party can appeal a civil damage awards decision. The appellate court reviews the record to ensure that the lower court applied the correct legal standards and that the evidence supports the amount granted. They may affirm, reverse, or send the case back for a new trial on the issue of damages only.