In Jacque , the supreme court concentrated very specifically and thoroughly on the special nature of the harm caused by trespass to land-harm quite distinguishable from that resulting from intoxicated driving. If Jacque is inapplicable, however, it is inapplicable only as an exception to Tucker . Here, by contrast, Gage's compensatory damages were both available and recovered. 2 Hagen, however, seems to be assuming that nominal damages are under the umbrella of compensatory damages. They are not.
Nominal damages are distinct.
Nominal damages are to be distinguished from compensatory damages on the one hand and from punitive damages on the other, in that they are granted irrespective of harm to the complainant or of a bad state of mind on the part of the defendant. 3 Gage could not have recovered punitive damages from the insurer under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy covering the vehicle he was driving. See Burns v. Milwaukee Mut. See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Therefore, this court concludes that the small claims court erred in granting summary judgment to Hagen and dismissing Gage's action.