Damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compensatory damages
Compensatory damages, called actual damages, are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another's breach of duty.
[edit]Quantum/measure of damages
[edit]Breach of contract duty - (ex contractu)
On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise or promises (known as an "expectation measure" or "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages).
When it is either not possible or not desirable to award sured in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position they occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure"), or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched ("restitution") (see below).
Parties may contract for liquidated damages to be paid upon a breach of the contract by one of the parties. Under common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the purpose of the term is solely to punish a breach (in this case it is termed penal damages). The clause will be enforceable if it involves a genuine attempt to quantify a loss in advance and is a good faith estimate of economic loss. Courts have ruled as excessive and invalidated damages which the parties contracted as liquidated, but which the court nonetheless found to be penal.
[edit]Breach of tort duty - (ex delicto)
Damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position that would have been taken had the tort not taken place. Damages in tort are quantified under two headings: general damages and special damages.
In personal injury claims, damages for compensation are quantified by reference to the severity of the injuries sustained (see below general damages for more details). In non-personal injury claims, for instance, a claim for professional negligence against solicitors, the measure of damages will be assessed by the loss suffered by the client due to the negligent act or omission by the solicitor giving rise to the loss. The loss must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.[2] Financial losses are usually simple to quantify but in complex cases which involve loss of pension entitlements and future loss projections, the instructing solicitor will usually employ a specialist expert actuary or accountant to assist with the quantification of the loss.
[edit]General damages
General damages, sometimes styled hedonic damages, compensate the claimant for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered. This is usually termed 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity'. Examples of this include physical or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of consortium, disfigurement, loss of reputation, loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.[3] This is not easily quantifiable, and depends on the individual circumstances of the claimant. Judges in the United Kingdom base the award on damages awarded in similar previous cases.
General damages are generally awarded only in claims brought by individuals, when they have suffered personal harm. Examples would be personal injury (following the tort of negligence by the defendant), or the tort of defamation.
[edit]Speculative damages
Speculative damages are damages that have not yet occurred, but the plaintiff expects them to. Typically, these damages cannot be recovered unless the plaintiff can prove that they are reasonably likely to occur.[4]
Various matters
Judicial remedies
Legal remedies (Damages)
Compensatory damages
Punitive damages
Incidental damages
Consequential damages
Liquidated damages
Reliance damages
Nominal damages
Statutory damages
Treble damages
Equitable remedies
Specific performance
Account of profits
Constructive trust
Injunction · Restitution
Rescission · Rectification
Declaratory relief
Related issues
Adequate remedy
Election of remedies
Provisional remedy
Tracing · Legal costs
v • d • e
[edit]Incidental and consequential losses
Special damages are sometimes divided into incidental damages, and consequential damages.
Incidental losses include the costs needed to remedy problems and put things right. The largest element is likely to be the reinstatement of property damage. Take for example a factory which was burnt down by the negligence of a contractor. The claimant would be entitled to the direct costs required to rebuild the factory and replace the damaged machinery.
The claimant may also be entitled to any consequential losses. These are the lost profits that the claimant could have been expected to make in the period whilst the factory was closed and rebuilt.
[edit]Foreseeability and remoteness
Damages are likely to be limited to those reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability. This is known as remoteness.
This rule does not usually apply to intentional torts (e.g. deceit), and also has stunted applicability to the quantum in negligence where the maxim Intended consequences are never too remote applies – 'never' is inaccurate here but resorts to unforeseeable direct and natural consequences of an act.
[edit]Quantifying losses in practice – expert evidence
It may be useful for the lawyers for the plaintiff and/or the defendant to employ forensic accountants or forensic economists to give evidence on the value of the loss. In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness.
[edit]Statutory damages
Statutory damages are laid down in law. Mere violation of the law can entitle the victim to a statutory award, even if no actual injury occurred. These are similar to, but different from, nominal damages (see below) in which no written sum is specified.
For example, the possible remedies for misrepresentation in the United Kingdom are codified in the Misrepresentations Act.
[edit]Nominal damages
On the other hand, nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL. Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages are generally fixed at £2.
Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
[edit]Punitive damages (non-compensatory)
Main article: Punitive damages
Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.
Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[2]
[edit]Restitutionary or disgorgement damages
In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution. Doyle and Wright define restitutionary damages as being a monetary remedy that is measured according to the defendant's gain rather than the plaintiff's loss.[7] The plaintiff thereby gains damages which are not measured by reference to any loss sustained. In some areas of the law this heading of damages is uncontroversial; most particularly intellectual property rights and breach of fiduciary relationship.
In England and Wales the House of Lords case of Attorney-General v. Blake opened up the possibility of restitutionary damages for breach of contract. In this case the profits made by a defecting spy, George Blake, for the publication of his book, were awarded to the British Government for breach of contract. The case has been followed in English courts, but the situations in which restitutionary damages will be available remain unclear.
The basis for restitutionary damages is much debated, but is usually seen as based on denying a wrongdoer any profit from his wrongdoing. The really difficult question, and one which is currently unanswered, relates to what wrongs should allow this remedy.
[edit]Legal costs
In addition to damages, the successful party is entitled to be awarded his reasonable legal costs that he spent during the case. This is the rule in most countries other than the United States. In the United States, a party generally is not entitled to its attorneys' fees or for hardships undergone during trial, although a few exceptions exist, such as discrimination.[8] See American rule.
[edit]History
Among the Saxons, a price called Weregeld was paid for homicide by the killer, in part to the family of the victim, in part to the local king.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, January 3, 2011
Relative Placement in Child Protection Cases: A Judicial Perspective
Relative Placement in Child Protection Cases:
A Judicial Perspective
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Documents/Relative%20Placement.pdf
By Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
I. INTRODUCTION
Child welfare agencies and courts place thousands of children in out-of-home care
every year.
1
This paper examines whether the state should give relatives preference over
non-relatives when placing children—and, if so, how to accomplish that goal. In the
1980s, state and federal government policies shifted toward favoring relatives (so-called
“kinship care”), but significant problems arise when delays occur in implementing these
policies. For example, relatives do not always know that child protection proceedings
are pending, and delays in the child protection and court systems often exclude them
from consideration for placement even when they have notice. When relatives request
placement long after a child has entered foster care, child welfare agencies and courts
struggle with the competing placement interests of relatives, foster parents, and the
child. To implement relative preference policies effectively, child protection agencies
and courts must modify their practices and procedures. The stakes are high because
placement will have a lifelong impact on the families involved and, most significantly,
on the child.
Section II briefly describes child placement history in the United States. The third
section addresses the emergence of relative preference as a goal within the child protection system. This discussion includes reasons why policy makers prefer relative placements to non-relative placements, and when and why states and the federal government
began passing legislation reinforcing this preference. The fourth section examines the
1 As of November 2008, there were 508,446 children in out-of-home care according to the
Children’s Defense Fund, Children in the United States (2009).
A Judicial Perspective
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Documents/Relative%20Placement.pdf
By Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
I. INTRODUCTION
Child welfare agencies and courts place thousands of children in out-of-home care
every year.
1
This paper examines whether the state should give relatives preference over
non-relatives when placing children—and, if so, how to accomplish that goal. In the
1980s, state and federal government policies shifted toward favoring relatives (so-called
“kinship care”), but significant problems arise when delays occur in implementing these
policies. For example, relatives do not always know that child protection proceedings
are pending, and delays in the child protection and court systems often exclude them
from consideration for placement even when they have notice. When relatives request
placement long after a child has entered foster care, child welfare agencies and courts
struggle with the competing placement interests of relatives, foster parents, and the
child. To implement relative preference policies effectively, child protection agencies
and courts must modify their practices and procedures. The stakes are high because
placement will have a lifelong impact on the families involved and, most significantly,
on the child.
Section II briefly describes child placement history in the United States. The third
section addresses the emergence of relative preference as a goal within the child protection system. This discussion includes reasons why policy makers prefer relative placements to non-relative placements, and when and why states and the federal government
began passing legislation reinforcing this preference. The fourth section examines the
1 As of November 2008, there were 508,446 children in out-of-home care according to the
Children’s Defense Fund, Children in the United States (2009).
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Cardassian Justice
Cardassian Justice
A quick lesson in Cardassian "Justice"
You are denied knowledge of what you are accused of until your trial.
You can never know who your accusers are- for "security" reasons.
Trials are a show for the public, to explain how the guilt was determined, not to find a verdict.
The verdict is always predetermined- guilty.
The duty of your Consort is get you to valiantly accept the charges and execution.
Does anything sound familiar here?
A quick lesson in Cardassian "Justice"
You are denied knowledge of what you are accused of until your trial.
You can never know who your accusers are- for "security" reasons.
Trials are a show for the public, to explain how the guilt was determined, not to find a verdict.
The verdict is always predetermined- guilty.
The duty of your Consort is get you to valiantly accept the charges and execution.
Does anything sound familiar here?
freethefldschildren: ONE VOICE
This is a picture of my grandson Austin, before he was STOLEN by NH DCYF. The picture at the top of the page is of Austin, after he was stolen and drugged by DCYF.
He's still not home. He was sold by NH DCYF!
freethefldschildren: ONE VOICE
Her name, Krista Rodriquez. She is sneaking down the back stairway of the Courthouse in this picture. She just tried to justify taking away 3 children based upon knowingly false information. She heads Houston, Texas' CPS Office and has been in charge now for 56 death's of foster chidren in her "Care". Who stops this Angel of Death from killing number 57?
WE CAN!
As most of us know, there are hundred's of groups out there who want to stop the current abuses and excesses of CPS, CASA and the Court's.
Together, we have 10s of thousands of people, all looking towards a common goal; stopping the taking of our children without due process and for arbitrary and capricious reasons, foremost among them, the money our children are worth to the foster care and adoption industries.
Up to this point in time we have all complained and lobbied independently. It has sometimes been effective but has NEVER actually stopped the abuse and neglect of the greater majority of our children.
We're a diverse group with sometimes differing opinions but the one common goal we all have is to be left alone with raising our children or relatives whenever safely possible. When intervention is necessary we want input into the childrens care and well being, and we want to be kept abreast of significant events in their lives and care. As it stands now, a child can be murdered and we have no more rights to that information than the garbage man. That has to stop!
I propose we pool our substantial political clout into a cohesive group that speaks with one voice. We do NOT have to merge our individual groups, but we DO have to assign a single entity to speak for us all.
As a group and individually, I propose we ask our members to join an Association. I also propose we designate a single respected entity to speak for us.
I propose we designate The American Family Rights Association as our groups parent organization.
I propose we designate Mr. Richard Wexler of The NCCPR to speak on our behalf to both the media and to the various State and Federal agencies.
Both Leonard Henderson and Richard Wexler have proven themselves to be formidable and credible spokeperson's for the cause of reform, and by standing behind these two organizations with our voices and our support, we CANNOT be ignored or dismissed any longer as merely a loose pack of mal-contented child abusers.
Consider joining AFRA and the NCCPR today, and make it IMPOSSIBLE for your voice to be ignored any longer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)