Select Page

John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Chanbonpin, Kim D.

FALL 2012
·    Types of Damages
o  Nominal – symbolic damages symbolizing yes the plaintiff has been injured, saying there was a tort that the plaintiff was a victim of. Plaintiff had a cause of action even though the damages were nominal. ARE NOT AWARDABLE IN NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS.
o  Compensatory
§ Special Damages at General Damages
§ Compensatory damages that will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss include:
·    Harm to property
·    Harm to earning capacity
·    Creation of Liabilities
§ law should provide a remedy for an injury
§ Special Damages – monetary
·    Cost of hospital care, rehab, medical supplies, ambulance service
·    Past and future medical expenses
§ In calculating future damages
·    Present Value Analysis (methods)
o  Inflate discount rate
o  Real interest method
o  Total offset method – interest v inflation cancel each other out so just give an award
·    Don’t want to over compensate the plaintiff because you have to take into account interest rates – money makes money
·    But also have to take into account inflation that the money today won’t be worth as much in the future
§ General Damages – Pain and Suffering 
·    Pain and suffering
·    Non-economic damages
·    Non-pecuniary damages
·    Compensatory damages that may be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss include compensation for:
o  Bodily harm
o  Emotional distress
o  Punitive – designed to achieve punish tortfeasor and deterrence
·    Wry v. Dial – Compensatory Damages
o  Plaintiff injured in car accident caused by defendant, had major injuries and awarded 3.5 million in damages due to extensive injuries and pain and suffering caused
·    Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co – Punitive damages
o  Ford purposely put car on market even though they knew it was faulty and Grimshaw was awarded huge reward for call malfunctioning causing an accident and injury
o  To prevent Ford from engaging in this kind of practice again and ensuring they put consumer safety first
·    The person who acts either
o  Consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or
o  Knows that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire
·    Garratt v Daily
o  Boy pulled lawn chair from under Garratt causing her harm
o  Trial court found no intent to commit battery, on appeal case was remanded and confirmed by supreme court that boy could know that Garratt was going to sit in the chair and she would fall and may injure herself as a result
o  The mere absence to injure the plaintiff or just to play a joke does not dissolves ones liability
·    McGuire v. Almy
o  Defendant was a lunatic that hit plaintiff in the head with a wooden leg and injured her
o  She had warned them previously that if they came closer she would hit them
o  Court found defendant liable because she knew that striking her would injure her as previously stated
o  an insane person is just as liable as a sane person for intentional torts, and must make compensation for their injuries to people
o  The rule that insane people are liable for their actions is the same rule that applies to children, children are also liable for their actions in torts
·    Actor liable for battery if
o  He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact AND
o  a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly occurs
o  (to plaintiff or a third party)
·    Touching does not have to be tactile touching, can include poisoning or placing a trap wire on the ground etc.
·    Offensive touc

nd injured as a result of defendant shooting the gun, he is still liable even though he did not intend to shoot the plaintiff – transferred intent
·    Transferred intent would still find A liable even if in open baring waste land and A had no reason to believe that anybody else might be present
·    The law takes into account context, e.g a party they know that there will be contact and touching between two people even without consent
o  Difference between the case where the piano professor stroked his finger across lady`s back very lightly but caused serious harm and had to have her rib removed, she did not consent to the touching and it was not a situation where touching would result for the context of their case
·    Actor liable for false imprisonment if:
o  Acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor: and
o  His act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and
o  The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it
·    False imprisonment is used so that people can enjoy their freedom to move around and so that they cannot be constrained.
·    Dupler v. Seubert
o  Plaintiff was confined at work by her employers who refused to let her leave even after the work day was over
o  Blocks door, escorts to washroom, makes her sit down etc.
o  The right to confine an employee also has to be reasonable in time and sense
§ Paying the employee is not sufficient defense in detaining an employee