The jury found that the defendant was negligent. They found that the defendant’s negligence caused your accident. They awarded you one dollar. What happened? What are nominal damages, when do they occur, and what do they mean for your case?
What Nominal Damages Are
Nominal damages are token awards, often just one dollar, that acknowledge a legal wrong without compensating for substantial harm. They vindicate the plaintiff’s legal rights without providing meaningful monetary recovery.
Georgia courts recognize nominal damages as a legitimate verdict option. When the jury finds liability but concludes that the plaintiff suffered no compensable damages, or that the plaintiff failed to prove damages, nominal damages acknowledge the defendant’s wrongdoing while reflecting the absence of proven harm.
The concept exists because every legal wrong deserves a remedy, even if that remedy is purely symbolic. A trespass to property occurred even if it caused no damage. A battery happened even if it caused no injury. Nominal damages recognize these violations without pretending they caused substantial harm.
How Nominal Damages Occur in Personal Injury Cases
In personal injury cases, nominal damages typically result from one of several scenarios. Understanding these situations helps you avoid them.
The plaintiff proves liability but fails to prove damages. The jury believes the defendant was negligent but doesn’t believe the plaintiff’s claimed injuries resulted from that negligence. Perhaps the plaintiff had pre-existing conditions the jury attributed to the current problems. Perhaps the damages evidence was weak. The defendant did wrong, but not the wrong that harmed the plaintiff.
The jury finds the plaintiff contributed substantially to their own injuries. Under Georgia’s comparative fault system, a plaintiff found 49 percent at fault can still recover. But that recovery might be nominal if the jury determines the defendant’s conduct caused minimal harm while the plaintiff’s own actions caused most of their injuries.
Credibility destruction can lead to nominal damages. A jury that doesn’t believe the plaintiff’s account of their injuries, or believes the plaintiff is exaggerating, may acknowledge the accident occurred while refusing to credit the claimed harm.
Sympathy for the defendant sometimes produces nominal verdicts. Despite instructions to follow the law, juries sometimes reject plaintiffs they find unlikeable or sympathize with defendants they find appealing. The compromise verdict acknowledges legal liability while minimizing actual payment.
The Impact of Nominal Damages
A nominal damages verdict isn’t really a win. Though technically a verdict for the plaintiff, one dollar doesn’t cover attorney fees, litigation costs, or lost time. The plaintiff is worse off than if they’d never filed suit.
Contingency fee attorneys don’t collect meaningful fees from nominal verdicts. A third of one dollar doesn’t sustain a law practice. This means nominal damages risks affect case selection and attorney willingness to pursue borderline cases.
Court costs remain the plaintiff’s responsibility regardless of verdict amount. Filing fees, deposition costs, expert fees, and other litigation expenses typically dwarf any nominal recovery. The financial outcome is deeply negative despite the technical verdict.
Appeal options exist but are limited. Plaintiffs can argue the verdict was against the weight of evidence, but appellate courts are reluctant to second-guess jury damage assessments. The jury saw the evidence and reached a conclusion. Reversing that conclusion requires showing clear error, not just disagreement.
Avoiding Nominal Damages
Strong damages evidence is essential. Documented medical treatment, credible testimony about pain and limitation, objective evidence of injury, and corroborating witnesses all reduce nominal damages risk.
Credibility matters at every stage. Inconsistencies between testimony and medical records, exaggeration that surveillance exposes, and unsympathetic behavior all increase the chance that juries acknowledge liability while minimizing damages.
Connecting defendant conduct to plaintiff harm requires clear causation evidence. Medical experts linking the accident to specific injuries. Records showing no prior complaints and immediate post-accident symptoms. The chain from defendant negligence to plaintiff damages must be clear.
Realistic damages claims reduce nominal verdict risk. Overreaching claims that juries reject entirely may produce nominal awards. Claims proportionate to proven injury are more likely to produce proportionate awards.
Nominal Damages and Attorney Fees
Georgia generally follows the American Rule where each party pays their own attorney fees regardless of outcome. Nominal damages don’t automatically entitle either side to fee recovery.
However, specific situations may trigger fee implications. O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-68 provides for attorney fees when plaintiffs refuse reasonable settlement offers and then fail to obtain better results at trial. A nominal damages verdict after rejecting a substantial settlement offer could trigger this provision.
Some statutes provide for attorney fee awards to prevailing parties. Civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for example, allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover attorney fees. A plaintiff who proves a constitutional violation but receives only nominal damages might still recover attorney fees under such statutes, creating peculiar situations where the attorney fee award vastly exceeds the damages verdict.
When Nominal Damages Make Strategic Sense
Occasionally, plaintiffs pursue cases knowing that nominal damages are the likely outcome. These situations are unusual but exist.
Establishing legal precedent sometimes justifies nominal damages risk. A plaintiff challenging a questionable legal defense may want a jury verdict establishing that defense doesn’t shield defendants, even if damages in the specific case are minimal.
Proving a point has value for some plaintiffs beyond monetary recovery. A patient who believes a doctor lied to them may want the vindication of a verdict establishing that misconduct, even without substantial compensation.
Insurance and regulatory implications may follow liability findings regardless of damage amounts. A professional found liable for malpractice faces licensing consequences. A business found negligent faces insurance premium increases. These consequences may matter to plaintiffs even when nominal damages are the likely outcome.
The Pyrrhic Victory
Nominal damages verdicts are classic pyrrhic victories. The plaintiff won the battle, establishing that the defendant was wrong. But the war is lost. The defendant pays virtually nothing. The plaintiff pays substantial costs and receives no meaningful compensation.
Understanding nominal damages risk helps plaintiffs and their attorneys make sound litigation decisions. Cases with strong liability but weak damages deserve careful evaluation. Sometimes the risk of nominal damages counsels against filing suit. Sometimes it counsels settlement before trial. Sometimes it requires intensive damages evidence development before risking jury verdict.
Nominal damages represent a cautionary outcome that proper case development helps avoid. This article provides general information about nominal damages in Georgia. For specific guidance about your case’s damages evidence and risks, consult with a Georgia personal injury attorney.