Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Florida School of Law
Page, William H.

1.       REMEDIES
·         Specific ~ Restore specifically that which the D has taken from the P- preliminary and permanent injunctions.
·         Substitutionary ~ seek to provide P with a reasonable substitute for what D has taken- compensatory, liquidated, statutory, punitive
                Mirror in the bathroom at UM is not low enough for handicapped to see. Is it worth going
to trial for it?
•Can get injunction to lower the mirrors
•Money damages? How much money? Why?
•Attorney might want to prosecute for his personal glory, or to establish a precedent
A.      Compensatory Damages
1.US v. Hatahley (Substitutionary get $ to replace dead animals)
·         Statement: Action against the US to recover damages for livestock owned by the Navajo tribe which were rounded up and killed by federal agents after grazing on federal lands- natives claim the animals were uniquely trained.
·         Fundamental principle of damages is to restore the injured party as nearly as possible to the position that he would have been in, but for the wrong of the other party
·         Emotional damages are not part of compensatory damages, requires individual determination of damages, only for specific relationships between parties
·         Natives did not make any efforts to mitigate for the loss of the animals claiming they were special
·         Use market value/replacement cost of animals to calculate damages
B.      Alternative approaches to Damages
Mitchell v. Heinrichs (S. C. of Alaska)
·         Statement: P shot the D’s dog, sued seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Dismissal based on failure to prove damages, could not show dog had market value.
·         Issue: What is the measure of damages when you cannot show a market value for your pet?
·         Holding: Pet’s actual value to the owner may exceed its fair market value minus sentimental value. Because fair market value may not compensate for loss. No sentimental value.
Zeid v. Pearce (C of Appeals Texas)
·         Statement: veterinary malpractice, wanted pain and suffering, allege that doctor was negligent in knowing that dog was allergic to vaccination. Dog died from it.
·         Issue: What is the measure of damages?
·         Holding: holds that no pain and no suffering, in Texas recovery is dog’s market value.
·         Doctrinal: because does not allow for Med Mal. Principle must be consistent with other medical malpractice. (Must be some kind of consistency in malpractice cases). Can get loss of income for medical malpractice, but dogs do not work.
C. Liquidated Damages  
·         Damages are difficult to calculate or prove
·         Usually used for confidentiality breaches
·         Not usually worth the cost of litigation
D. Statutory Damages
·         Under a statute, violations entitle the victim to a set amount of compensation
E. Punitive Damages
·         Awarded to punish willful, wanton, or reckless conduct as a d

ies it does not prevent this.
BMW v. Gore (Not procedural as above, it is substantive)
·         Statement: BMW was hit with 4 million in punitive damages, where there were 4,000 in actual damages for concealing repainting of acid-rain damaged cars, BMW appealed on the grounds that the amount violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
·         Issue: Do grossly excessive punitive damage awards violate the due process clause?
·         Holding 1: Yes, grossly excessive awards violate the due process clause. 
·         Holding 2: Because the suit affected other state’s ∏’s, the court ruled that Alabama’s awards would be effectively altering other states’ policies.
·         3 guidelines to be used in deciding whether punitive damages are too large:
1.        The severity of the conduct
2.        The relative amount of actual damages
3.        Civil penalties imposed in comparable cases
·         4 problems with punitive.
1) Comparable cases- no really comparable cases
2) actual harm – minor harm, no malice
3) ratio of compensatory to punitive – vastly disproportionate
4) notice, was there fair notice that amount would be so big- Cannot
surprise with large penalties