Discussed various kinds of damages those can be awarded in an action based on tort.


Wrong or civil, in order to pass the “mistake”, against fraud, French, whether intentionally or accident, it is another hit. Is all intentional tort of negligent mistake will be lost as well. From the results of other groups in the field of civil law and tort law and main (including contract, real estate, criminal law). Some, such assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, and (a euphemism for theft) conversion, trespass as a cause of it is intentional tort as a victim because of the loss of property it is possible to form the basis for the case. Deliberately different – it is a crime by including defamation to be used, as a tort, tell a lie, print or broadcast or oral (slander) is about damage (slander)

Damages is a form of compensation. Compensation is a broader concept which encompasses, for example, money awarded under statutory schemes. On the other hand, damages are usually ordered by the court in actions for breach of contract or in tort (that is, a wrong or breach of duty). Here I have discussed various kinds of damages those can be awarded in an action based on tort.


A tort is a civil wrong done by one party to another.  An example of a tort is defamation, where one person makes false comments or statements about another person.  In this instance, money will be awarded to the second person to compensate them for the harm done to their reputation. As in contract, damages in tort are awarded to place the plaintiff in the position in which he or she would have been had the tort not been committed. A claim in tort gives rise to unliquidated damages; the worth of the damage can only be estimated, not calculated exactly.


Nominal and contemptuous

Nominal damages will be awarded where the claimant proves that the defendant has committed a tort but the claimant has suffered no loss[1].

Generally, derogatory damage to the region of the award – a negligible sum of money is made. They have been awarded when the plaintiff’s court action should not be reached, although technically successful, and had no merit. Potential plaintiff is awarded the successful party is usually the cost of risk, may be.

General and special

General damage is the damage that is presumed to flow from torts which are actionable per se, and so need not be specifically pleaded (e.g., loss of reputation in a libel action). Special damage refers to the damage that the claimant must plead and prove as part of his cause of action in torts where damage is the gist of the action[2].

It is commonly used for secondary, or special damages, general damages, the difference between many. In fact, the appeal properly, and “special damages” may be the damage has been calculated. Unliquidated damages (because they do not, but the appeal must assume), “general damages” award or compensation for the wrong[3].

Aggravated and exemplary

Court, you should consider when assessing the damages of the damage has been promised to take. Had it so that it can be if there is a dignity and pride that hurt the feelings of the plaintiff, compensation is increased. Damage is worsened compensation; they are to reflect the plaintiff to be more cases, more than usually hurt.

Those damages will be worse; typical damages are punitive in nature is different. It is the difference, the court deterioration that damages worsening plaintiff (and therefore, have the actual loss), the shock is that it is damages typical has been awarded the money to manage shock you can exemplary damages and actions for[4], the House of Lords held that, except where specifically authorized by statute, exemplary damages should be awarded only in two categories of case:

(a) Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government.
(b) Where the defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable.


Single Action

A claimant can bring only one action in respect of a single wrong. He cannot maintain a second action based on the same facts merely because the damage turns out to be more extensive than was anticipated[5] however, there are some exceptions to this.

Where a single wrongful action violates two distinct rights the claimant can bring separate actions in respect of each right. Although the rule in[6] requires the parties to bring the whole case before the court so that all aspects of the case may be finally decided (subject to any appeal) once and for all, in[7] the Court of Appeal gave three examples of special circumstances where the rule would not apply:

(a)Where the claimant was unaware of the existence of the claim;

(b) where an agreement was made between the parties holding the action in abeyance; and
(c) where the claimant had not brought his case earlier in reliance on a representation made by the defendant.

A second exception to the rule is where there is a continuing injury, such as a continuing nuisance or trespass to land. In trespass, being actionable per se, a fresh cause of action arises from day to day, and in nuisance a fresh cause of action arises whenever further damage occurs[8].

The final exception is that where a single wrong produces successive and distinct damage, then in torts which are actionable only on proof of damage (as opposed to torts actionable per se), a separate and distinct cause of action will accrue[9].

Lump sum

Form of bulk damages award should be evaluated once. This applies to both credit cards and the possibility of damage. Defendant, the power you need to pay on a regular basis is not supplied[10]. An exception of very limited application was accepted in[11]. Where there is evidence of a change of circumstances after the trial but before an appeal, the Court of Appeal will admit the new evidence. New evidence was also admitted by the House of Lords in[12] to ‘mitigate the injustices of a lump sum system’.

The lump-sum principle, combined with the rule that damages can be recovered once only, causes serious difficulties in actions for personal injuries, particularly where the medical prognosis is uncertain. There is now a procedure for the award of provisional damages in this type of case[13]. Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that in personal injury cases where there is a ‘chance’ that, as a result of the tort, the claimant will develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in his condition, he may be awarded provisional damages assessed on the basis that the disease or deterioration will not occur. If the event subsequently materialises the claimant can then make an application for further damages, which will more accurately compensate his loss. There can only be one such application in respect of a disease or type of injury specified in the original action.

Structured settlements

A recent development has been the introduction into this country of the North American concept of a ‘structured settlement’[14]. Payment is received in the form of periodic lump-sum payment of personal style – This is a normal lump the plaintiff and defendant in the future is to escape the responsibility of damages from insurance companies. This payment can be “structural” changes, or a certain period of time. Index, they are a specific period of time or until the death, and if they have requested – you can connect to. Plaintiff as a lump-sum payment of annual funding obligations has been paid by insurance companies to finance a purchase.

This annuity is held by the insurer on behalf of the claimant, and, as a result of a concession by the Inland Revenue, the payment is not taxable as income in the claimant’s hands. They depend upon agreement between the claimant and the defendant’s insurers; the court has no power to order such an arrangement without the consent of the parties[15].


Monetary and non-pecuniary loss – damage, personal injury plaintiffs to work with two different types. Penalties will be calculated according to the damage that is capable of directing the money terms. The commonest example is loss of earnings, both actual and future, but it includes all other expenses attributable to the tort, such as medical expenses, travelling expenses, the cost of special equipment or of employing someone to carry out domestic duties which the claimant is no longer able to perform, or loss of pension rights. Non pecuniary losses are such immeasurable matters as pain and suffering caused by the injury, and loss of amenity attributable to a disability[16].

In this case, some of the evaluation of damages under is ‘head’, in the calculation of interest, three broad head is as follows. Financial loss, loss of future non-economic damages and profits. He stressed that the house, the court of the validity of the total award of damages to the head of the duplication should be avoided.

Medical and other expenses

The applicant has the right to recover medical expenses; other expenses are is the same reason. As part of special damages, accrued expenses are awarded where damages are estimated to be as future medical expenses and general[17]

If the claimant has to live in a special institution, such as a nursing home, or receive attendance at home he is entitled to the cost of that, provided that it is reasonably necessary[18]. It often happens that a third person, such as a relative or friend, bears part of the cost of the claimant’s injury, either in the form of direct financial payments or by providing nursing assistants. Sometimes a spouse or close relative may give up paid employment in order to care for the claimant. The claimant can recover the cost of such care:

  • Until recently, the basis for such recovery was the Court of Appeal’s decision in[19] where it was held that the existence of a legal or moral obligation to reimburse the third party was irrelevant. It was incorrect, said the court, to think of this are someone else’s loss. It was the claimant’s loss. His loss, not a particular piece of equipment and services, was required to spend the money itself. I was so worried about, such as defendant, plaintiff is the moral obligation of the legal requirements have been met, or source from, or paid, and who have a service, or pay to the claimant, it was under, I was independent.
  • While retaining the general rule that the claimant can recover for the gratuitous provision of care by third party and preserving the principles as to quantum, the House of Lords in[20] have altered the basis upon which such an award is made, reverting to the approach suggested by Lord Denning MR in[21], that the award reflects the claimant’s obligation to hold that portion of the damages in trust, to be paid to the person supplying the services. One consequence of shifting the focus from the claimant to the third party is that, as in[22] itself, an award could not be made where the services are provided by the defendant tort feasor.


Actual loss

It is not usually difficult to calculate the claimant’s actual loss of earnings from the date of the injury to the date of assessment. This is the net loss, after deducting income tax and social security contributions[23]. An employee’s contributions to a pension scheme are also deducted in calculating his actual loss of earnings.

Prospective loss

The calculation of future loss of earnings, however presents real problems, largely because the court has to engage in the exercise of prophesying both what will happen to the claimant in the future and what would have happened if he had not been injured, in order to estimate the difference.

The starting-point in this process is to work out the claimant’s net annual loss of earnings (as that the date of assessment, not the date of the injury[24]. The net annual loss is known as the ‘multiplicand’, and will be adjusted to take account of the claimant’s individual prospects of promotion[25], but no allowance is made for real increases in average earnings generally.

This sum is then multiplied by another figure, called the ‘multiplier’, which is based initially on the number of years that the loss is likely to continue. The multiplier is then reduced, or ‘discounted’ to take account of:

(a)    the uncertainty of the prediction – the claimant might have lost his job in any event at some point in the future e.g., through redundancy or illness; and

(b)   the fact that the claimant receives the money now as a capital sum, instead of in instalments over the rest of his working life.

The Damages Act 1996, s1, permits the Lord Chancellor to give general guidance on rates of return, though leaving discretion to the courts to apply different rates where appropriate. The Lord Chancellor issued a consultation paper on this question in March 2000, but in the meantime the course are applying the 3% discount rate[26].

The lost years

This rule effectively penalised the claimant’s dependants, since their dependency in the ‘lost years’ would have been met from the claimant’s earnings during that period. This consideration led the House of Lords to overrule Oliver in Pickett v British Rail [1980] AC 136. Damages for prospective loss of earnings are now awarded for the whole of the claimant’s pre-accident life expectancy, subject to a deduction for the money that the claimant would have spent on his own (not his dependents’) living expenses during the last years[27].


A person suffers personal injury may receive financial support from a number of sources other than tort damages. The most common source is social security but others include, for example, sick pay, pensions, private insurance and charitable donations[28].

(a)    Social security benefits

The Social Security Act 1989 introduced a scheme of ‘recoupment’ of prescribed social security benefits from tort feasors/insurers by the state for accidents or injury occurring on or after 1 January 1989. This system has been further amended by the Social Security[29]  Act 1997, which applies retrospectively to all settlements made or judgments given on or after 6 October 1997. Benefits are no longer ‘recouped’; they are ‘recovered’ from the compensator. Any ‘recoverable benefits’ paid to the victim of an accident, injury or disease in the ‘relevant period’ is recoverable from the compensator.

(b)   Other collateral benefits

  • The proceeds of a personal accident insurance policy taken out by the claimant are ignored, on the basis that otherwise the claimant’s foresight and thrift would benefit the defendant (by reducing the damages payable) instead of himself[30].
  •  Gratuitous payments to the claimant from charitable motives are not deducted, again on the assumption that the donor intended to benefit the claimant rather than the defendant[31].
  • The House of Lords held in[32] that an occupational disability pension should not be deducted from lost earnings, whether the pension was contributory or non-contributory. The majority took the view that the nature of a pension makes it analogous to private insurance effected by the claimant and so within the general principle of [33].
  • Occupational sick pay will be deducted if paid as a term of the claimant’s contract of employment (unless there is a contractual obligation to repay the employer on receipt of tort damages[34]
  • If the claimant is made redundant as a result of his injuries, in the sense that his disability makes him a more likely candidate for redundancy, then any redundancy payment received will be deducted.
  •  A compensation payment from a statutory compensation scheme for workers who developed an industrial disease (pneumoconiosis) is deductible from damages awarded in respect of the same illness[35].

Loss of earning capacity

If at the same speed as the income of the injury suffered before, people with a permanent disability affecting the ability of the future he has acquired, then either he or loss of income cannot be. Total loss of income if he can work in low-profit, if you can not work at all, or part. However, even in some cases, even his ability affect the income, the plaintiff, the loss of income of the employer for him, he received the work continues to pay the same price .

 In these circumstances the claimant is entitled to damages for his loss of capacity, if there is a real risk that he could lose his existing employment, because his capacity to find an equivalent job has been reduced[36]. This involves a two-stage test:

(1)   was there a substantial or real risk that the claimant would lose his present job at some time before the end of his working life? and

(2)   if so, what is the present value of future risk?

There is no real distinction between damages for loss of earning capacity and damages for future loss of earnings.


Neurosis of the plaintiff, arising from or due to treatment, injury, and to obtain compensation for physical pain and suffering caused by the future have the right to strike. A person who suffers mental anguish because he knows that his life expectancy has been reduced can recover that anguish[37]. Similarly, a person who has been incapacitated and is capable of appreciating his condition will be compensated for the anguish that this creates[38].


The injury itself represents loss of faculty whereas the consequences of the injury on the claimant’s activities represents a loss of amenity, e.g., loss of job satisfaction, or loss of leisure activities and hobbies, and loss of family life. It is rarely necessary to distinguish between these heads because the courts usually award a single global sum to cover all the claimant’s non-pecuniary losses[39](No 257, 1999).


The court has a discretion to award simple interest on all or any part of the damages, and in the case of damages for personal injuries or death exceeding £200 the court must award interest unless there are special reasons for not doing so (Supreme Court Act 1981, s35A). Where the claimant has delayed bringing a claim to trial the court has discretion to disallow all part of the claim for pre-trial interest.

Modest rate of interest on damages for non-pecuniary loss, the invoice from the date of service of a trial date, the prize is 2 percent. This low rate, the court, considering the general up to ‘cost’ value for determining the compensation of non-monetary loss, which is the nominal interest rate that is identified large-scale inflation, by inflation[40]. Note that this rate may now be increased to 3% in the light of the decision of the House of Lords.


Deliberate destruction to the other several types of negligence, personal injury law and real or personal property. Caused by negligence or willful damage law suit for damages, to property, injury is different. May include other physical damage to automobile damage, fence, tree, house and land. The amount of recovery for property damage may be established by evidence of replacement value, cost of repairs, loss of use until repaired or replaced or, in the case of heirlooms or very personal items (e.g. wedding pictures), by subjective testimony as to sentimental value.



A prohibitory injunction is an order of the court requiring the defendant to cease committing a continuing tort, such as a continuing nuisance or trespass, or restraining the repetition of tortuous conduct where it is likely to be repeated. It is negative in nature, in that requires the defendant not to do something or to cease doing something.

Contrast, mandatory injunction, to prevent the defendant to the plaintiff the right to remove a while, you will be able to perform some of the positive law. An injunction is an equitable remedy (though note that a number of statutes confer a jurisdiction to grant injunctions, e.g., the Protection from Harassment Act 1997), and as such it is a discretionary remedy. A number of factors will be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the discretion:

  • An injunction will not be granted where damages would be an adequate remedy, nor, possibly, where the harm to the claimant from the tort is trivial.
  • If it is impossible for the defendant to comply with the order it will not be granted, but the fact that the defendant will be put to considerable trouble and expense does not make it impossible to comply.
  • The conduct of the parties may be taken into account.

Mandatory injunctions are not granted so readily as prohibitory injunctions. In Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd [1970] AC 652 the House of Lords said that a mandatory injunction would not be granted unless there was a strong probability that very serious damage to the claimant will result if it is withheld.


In some circumstances the claimant may be entitled to a quia timet injunction, which will restrain conduct that is likely to cause substantial damage before any damage has actually occurred (and thus, in torts which are not actionable per se, before any cause of action has accrued). The likelihood of substantial damage must be strong, and the damage must be imminent[41]. The claimant must be able to point to a good cause of action in order to restrain the harm.


An interim injunction is a provisional order which may be issued pending a full trial of the action on the merits of the case. This means that on an application for an interim injunction the court does not investigate the merits, and provided there is a ‘serious question’ to be tried the court will exercise its discretion on the ‘balance of convenience’[42].

Where an interim injunction is granted the claimant will usually be required to give an undertaking to pay damages to the defendant for losses sustained by the defendant as a result of the injunction if, at the hearing on the merits, the claimant’s action fails.


The court has discretion to award damages in addition to or in substitution for an injunction[43] although the discretionary function exception is not usually at issue in ordinary medical malpractice cases, it does prevent claims based on staffing decisions and care driven by specific protocols that reflect policy choices on how to allocate resources or other discretionary matters.


Defamation economic loss under the current law, tort and personal injury or fraud life spirit, which imposes a duty of very few . The present deficiency of any effort to examine the implication of this area of harms in tort law is not in agreement when compared to contract law, as stated by Lord Justice Bingham in Wutts v Morrow.[44] His Lordship’s legal opinion has contributed constitution and inevitability to contractual assertion for mental hurt, even though the affect of the House of Lords’ judgment in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth[45] and the implication of consumer excess opinion[36] have still questionably to be settled.[46] There is no corresponding decision in tort. This is barely astonishing, even though there is no common treatment for these heads amid the different torts. Also it cannot be stated that no principle can be detected giving cohesion and clearness to these heads of damages. Thus we can conclude by stating that the liability under Torts Law under the three heads is too little.


  1. Alston v. King, 231 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. Ind. 2000)
  2. Decastro v. Wellston City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 94 Ohio St. 3d 197 (Ohio 2002)
  3. Spearing v. Whitney-Central Nat’l Bank, 129 La. 607 (La. 1911)
  4. King Land Co. v. Bowen, 7 Ala. App. 462 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913)
  5. Ortale v. Rowlett, 696 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. App. Dallas 1985)
  6. New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 (Miss. 1866)
  7. Ciarrocca v. Campbell, 282 Pa. Super. 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)
  8. Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2009)
  9. Jackson v. International Paper Co., 163 So. 2d 362 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1964)
  10. Garfoot v. Avila, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1205 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1989)
  11. Sebastian v. Kluttz, 6 N.C. App. 201 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
  12. http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/tort-law-is-a-law-of-wrongs.php
    1. [199 1] 1 WLR 142 1 at 1445. See also Bliss v South East Thmnes Regional Health Autlioriy [ 1987] ICR 700 and. more generally, McGregor, paras 92-106 and P Giliker (1997) 141 SJ 998 and [ 19981 Bus LR 86 for more detailed examination of case law.
    2. [1996] 1 AC 344, HL; [I9941 1 WLR 650. CA. Note J O’Sullivan [1995] CLJ 496 and ch 1 in F Rose (ed) Failure ojcontracts (Oxford: Hart, 1 997), G McMeel [1995] LMCLQ 456; J Poole (1996) 59 MLR 272; B Coote [I9971 CLJ 537. Followed by the Court of Appeal in Freeman v Niroornand (1996) 52 Con LR 1 16.
    3. The concept of the ‘consumer surplus’ is explained in the well-known article D Hams, A Ogus and J Philips ‘Contract Remedies and the Consumer Surplus’ (1 979) 95 LQR 58 1.
    4. McGregor, above n 1, para 104 suggests that the courts will only resort to ‘Ruxley type’ damages when it is not prepared to award the cost of reinaatement and the diminution in value suffered by the claimant is limited to nominal damages. This is no case law at present to suggest otherwise.
    5. McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, 431
    6. Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40, 42, per Lord Denning MR.
    7. Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40
    8. Brice v Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997.8
    9. Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, 179, per Lord Jauncey.
    10. [2001] AC 127, 201.                                    

[1] Ex: For example, if one neighbor sues another for libel based on untrue things the second neighbor said about the first, a jury might conclude that although libel technically occurred, no serious damage was done to the first neighbor’s reputation and consequentially award nominal damages of $1.00.

[2] e.g., negligence, nuisance, slander

[3] For example, in a personal injuries action, accrued expenses such as damaged clothing, medical expenses and loss of earnings to the date of trial are special damages. Pain and suffering and loss of amenity (and prospective loss of earnings) are treated as general damages.

[4] In Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129

[5] Fetter v Beale (1701) 1 Ld Raym 339, 692.

[6] Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.

[7] Talbot v Berkshire CC [1994] QB 290.

[8] Darley Main Colliery v Mitchell (1886) 11 App Cas 127.

[9] Mount Albert BC v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234.

[10] (Burke v Tower Hamlets Health Authority [1989] Times Law Reports August 10).

[11] Mullholand v Mitchell [1971] AC 666.

[12] Lim Poh Choo v Camden AHA [1980] AC 174.

[13] CPR, Part 41.

[14] for a definition see the Damages Act 1996, s5.

[15] (Damages Act 1996, s2). And See also, CPR PD40.

[18] (Shearman v Folland [1950] 2 KB 43).

[19] Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454

[20] Hunt v Seers

[21] Cunningham v Harrison [1973] QB 942.

[22] Hunt v Seers.

[23] British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185.

[24] Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556.

[25] Roach v Yates [1938] 1 KB 256.

[26] Warren v Northern General Hospital [2000] 1 WLR 1404, CA.

[29] Recovery of Benefits

[30] Bradburn v Great Western Railway (1874) LR 10 Ex 1.

[31] Redpath v Belfast Railway [1947] NI 167).

[32] Parry v Cleaver [1970] AC 1.

[33] Bradbury v Great Western Railway.

[34] Browning v War Office [1963] 1 QB 750).

[35] (Ballantine v Newalls Insulation [2000] Times Law Reports June 22).

[36] (Smith v Manchester Corp (1974) 17 KIR 1.

[37] (Administration of Justice Act 1982, s1(1)(b), restating the common law position).

[38] (West & Son Ltd v Shepherd [1964] AC 326).

[39] In Heil v Rankin [2000] 2 WLR 1173

[40] (Wright v British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773).

[41] Lemos v Kennedy Leigh Development Co (1961) 105 SJ 178.

[42] (American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, 408) and  See also, CPR PD25.

[43] Supreme Court Act 1981, s50.

[44] [199 1] 1 WLR 142 1 at 1445. See also Bliss v South East Thmnes Regional Health Autlioriy [ 1987] ICR 700 and. more generally, McGregor, paras 92-106 and P Giliker (1997) 141 SJ 998 and [ 19981 Bus LR 86 for more detailed examination of case law.

[45] [1996] 1 AC 344, HL; [I9941 1 WLR 650. CA. Note J O’Sullivan [1995] CLJ 496 and ch 1 in F Rose (ed) Failure ojcontracts (Oxford: Hart, 1 997), G McMeel [1995] LMCLQ 456; J Poole (1996) 59 MLR 272; B Coote [I9971 CLJ 537. Followed by the Court of Appeal in Freeman v Niroornand (1996) 52 Con LR 1 16.

[46] McGregor, above n 1, para 104 suggests that the courts will only resort to ‘Ruxley type’ damages when it is not prepared to award the cost of reinaatement and the diminution in value suffered by the claimant is limited to nominal damages. This is no case law at present to suggest otherwise.