When someone suffers an injury because of another person’s wrongful conduct, the law allows the injured person to seek compensation through “damages.” “Damages” are the monetary compensation awarded to the injured person to make the injured person whole again. California law recognizes various types of damages, including general damages and special damages. Understanding what damages are available, how they are categorized, and when they can be recovered is crucial to pursuing or defending any legal claim.
What are damages?
“Damages” are court-awarded monetary compensation for a loss or injury caused by another person’s wrongful act. (Meister v. Mensinger (6th Dist. 2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 381, 396-7; DeLisi v. Lam (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 663, 681.) Courts may award damages to either remedy a past harm or to a compensate a future harm that the court or jury determines is reasonably certain to occur. (Civ. Code, §§ 3281-3283.) Overall, damages aim to return the injured party to the position they would have been in if the injury had not occurred.
Types of Damages
Generally, the term “damage” is associated with loss or injury. In a legal sense, the term “damages” means monetary compensation. Under California law, an individual injured by the wrongful actions of another may recover monetary compensation depending on the specific circumstances causing the injury.
Because of their inherent uniqueness, California law recognizes a variety of damages recoverable by an injured party, each of which aims to compensate a different consequence of the injury. Preliminarily, damages are categorized as either “general” or “special damages.” (Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 881, 891-892 (Licudine).)
General Damages
General damages compensate individuals for non-economic harm such as shame, emotional distress, or loss of reputation. Because general damages compensate for subjective harm, they are not pecuniarily measurable and thus, are exempt from the fixed rules of quantification that generally govern other types of damages. (see Rivera v. Hillard (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 964.) For example, an injured party can recover damages for their “loss of earning power” as general damages. (Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 237, 251-252.) Here, the court awards general damages for loss of earning power to account for the injured party’s loss of ability to earn money after sustaining the injury. (Id.)
Special Damages
In comparison, special damages compensate individuals for economic losses that do not arise directly out of the wrongful act or breach. (Myers v. Stephens (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 104, 120-121; see also Gomes v. Fried (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 924.) Instead, special damages are awarded depending on the specific circumstances surrounding the wrongful act that directly caused each individual injury. (Berry v. Bank of Bakersfield (1918) 177 Cal. 206, 210.) Accordingly, special damages are commonly referred to as “out-of-pocket losses” that are “peculiar to the infliction of each respective injury.” (Licudine, 3 Cal.App.5th at 892 citing Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1599.) Economic losses are expenses the injured party incurred because of the wrongdoer’s actions. Generally, economic losses arise in the form of medical expenses, lost wages, or property damages.
General Damages v. Special Damages
Courts commonly award the injured party both general damages and special damages in the same action.
For example, when a wrongdoer injures someone in a manner that results in a physical injury that interferes with their ability to work, the injured party can recover general damages, special damages, or both. Thus, when the injured party retrospectively obtains an award for her “loss of wages between the occurrence of the injury and the trial[,]” she has recovered special damages. (Licudine, 3 Cal.App.5th at 892 citing Swanson v. Bogatin (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 755, 758 (emphasis added).) Likewise, when the injured party recovers the cost of her medical bills, she has recovered special damages.
Further, when the injured party obtains a separate damages award related to the same injury for her loss of earning capacity, the court is compensating her for the future loss caused by the injury; thus, she has recovered general damages. (Licudine, 3 Cal.App.5th at 892 citing Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 483, 489 (emphasis added).) Similarly, when the injured party recovers an award for the emotional distress the injured caused her, she has recover general damages.
Compensatory Damages
Compensatory damages are a type of monetary compensation awarded in civil litigation to compensate the injured party for the actual harm or loss suffered because of the wrongdoer’s actions. Courts award compensatory damages to make the injured party whole again by addressing the injured party’s actual harm. (Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363, 371.) As such, compensatory damages include both economic and non-economic losses such as medical expenses, bodily harm, loss of earnings, emotional distress, loss of earning capacity, and mental suffering.
Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter future instances of wrongful conduct. (Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001) 532 U.S. 424, 432, (Cooper).) Notably, a punitive damages awards does not depend on proof, or the lack thereof, of the wrong-doer’s ability to pay the awarded sum. (Patterson v. Balsamico (2d Cir. 2006) 440 F.3d 104, 121-122.) Thus, courts have broad discretion to award punitive damages; however, this discretion is subject to strict constitutional limitations. (Cooper, 532 U.S. at 433; Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) 549 U.S. 346, 352-353 (Williams); U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.)
The Supreme Court has established three constitutional guideposts to aid in the determination of whether a punitive damage award is constitutionally appropriate.
- Degree of Reprehensibility: The degree of reprehensibility is the most important indication of a punitive damages award’s reasonableness. (State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, 419 (State Farm).) Here, the court considers (a) the nature of the defendant’s misconduct, (b) the type of harm that occurred, (c) whether the conduct indicates the wrongdoer’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the public’s health and safety, and (d) whether the defendant acted with malice or deceit. (BMW of North America v. Gore 517 U.S. 559, 575.)
- Ratio between Punitive Damages and Compensatory Damages: There is no special or exact justification for determining a proper ratio between the punitive and compensatory damages awards; however, it is well-established that a proper ratio does not exceed 10:1. (Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1159, 1182.) A single digit ratio is not, however, automatically valid. (State Farm, 583 U.S. at 425.) As such, the appropriateness of the ratio depends on the substantialness of a compensatory damages award and whether it already contains a punitive element. (Id.)
- Comparison to Civil Penalties in Similar Cases: Lastly, the court must compare the punitive damages awarded to the civil penalties other courts have imposed in comparable cases to ensure fairness and consistency. (Grassili v. Barr (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1290 citing State Farm, 538 U.S. at 428.)
In addition to constitutional limitations, California law requires proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant punitive damages awards. (Civ. Code, § 3294.)
Are damages available in a partition suit?
In the context of partitions, California Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 empowers courts to order allowances, contribution, or other compensatory adjustments as equity requires. (CCP § 872.140.)
Typically, court’s use the partition’s final accounting to address charges and credits on each co-owner’s interest. These charges and credits may include expenses exceeding the paying co-owner’s fractional share of ownership for costs such as necessary repairs, improvements that enhance the property’s value, taxes, insurance, mortgage payments, or other costs necessary to preserve the property. (CCP § 873.220; see Wallace v. Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028.)
Importantly, where default is sought in a partition action, California Code of Civil Procedure section 580 limits the amount of monetary relief that may be awarded to the non-defaulting party to the specific amount demanded in the complaint. (CCP § 580; Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.)
What is an example?
“Shawn” and “Julie” inherited a house as 50/50 co-owners. Julie wants to sell the property and split the proceeds equally, but Shawn refuses to sell and instead, moves into the house, and starts renting out rooms on Airbnb. Shawn pockets all of the money from his rentals and has changed the locks on the property to keep Julie out. So far, Shawn has earned $30,000.00 in rental profits.
When Julie discovers Shawn’s actions, Julie files for partition by sale under California law. At trial, the court orders the property to be partitioned by sale. After reviewing the evidence of Shawn’s exclusive use and rental profits, the court awards Julie $15,000.00 in damages. Once the house sells, Julie’s damages will be deducted from Shawn’s share of the sale proceeds, ensuring Julie is paid before the partition is resolved.
Conclusion
Understanding damages in any dispute is essential, especially when navigating complicated property disputes where co-owners seek to recover their interests. At Underwood Law, our partition attorneys can help you navigate your partition action efficiently and with care. We are here to help.
