Punitive Damages Vs Nominal

Like the name implies, nominal damages are a trivial sum that a judge awards in a civil case. The amount is a symbolic gesture that shows the court’s acknowledgement of a plaintiff’s legal right to compensation. They’re typically awarded in cases where a defendant has violated the plaintiff’s legal rights but didn’t cause any actual harm or loss.

In some states, courts can award a nominal amount along with attorney’s fees in order to provide for the cost of litigating the case. However, many legal experts are against this approach because it creates a disparity between the amount of the nominal award and the costs associated with fighting for it.

Punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate the plaintiff. They’re used to deter similar behavior by others. In a classic example, imagine that a judge orders an auto company to pay punitive damages for selling cars with faulty brakes. The decision doesn’t just punish the company that broke the law, it also sends a message to other automakers that they’ll be punished if they sell vehicles with unsafe brakes.

What Is Punitive Damages Vs Nominal?

As such, it’s important to understand the difference between nominal and punitive damages before filing a claim. The distinction is important because the Supreme Court has interpreted Article III of the Constitution, in particular its “case or controversy” requirement, to mandate that plaintiffs demonstrate actual harm before a court will grant them federal standing. If you don’t have proof that you suffered a financial loss or other real harm, you won’t be able to pursue a lawsuit in federal court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski has changed the way that courts view nominal damages claims. It seems that the court’s reasoning in this case could be applied to many nominal damage cases, particularly those brought to redress a violation of a constitutional right.

A famous example of this is the libel case of Balfour Peisner vs. Detroit Free Press. The judge in this case decided that a person cannot receive compensation twice for the same emotional distress, so he awarded exemplary damages as well as actual libel damages.

This means that a defendant who is liable for nominal damages might be able to avoid being forced to pay a lot of money in attorneys’ fees. However, it’s worth noting that the Supreme Court has previously held that a nominal damages award cannot be considered moot and thus prevent a plaintiff from recovering attorneys’ fees. If you have questions about how this decision might impact your case, contact an experienced Georgia civil rights attorney. He or she will be able to explain your options and help you decide the best course of action moving forward. Contact our office today to schedule a free consultation. We serve clients throughout the country. We look forward to hearing from you.