Court Opinion

ID: 9538685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:39:45.68738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:05.030629
License: Public Domain

LOCKWOOD, Justice
(specially concurring) :
While I agree in the result reached herein, I feel the predicate for recovery of exemplary damages should be more precisely established for the guidance of the trial court upon a new trial. Thus it appears a short discussion of nominal damages would be appropriate.
The term “nominal damages” describes two types of awards: (1) a trifling or token sum awarded to a plaintiff in an action for a mere technical invasion of a right without actual damage; and (2) the very different allowance made when actual damages are substantial but their extent and amount is difficult of precise measurement. See, Kluge v. O’Gara, 227 Cal.App. 2d 207, 38 Cal.Rptr. 607 (1964) ; Sterling Drug v. Benatar, 99 Cal.App.2d 393, 221 P.2d 965 (1950); Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed.).
The better reasoned rule appears to be that punitive damages are not recoverable when no actual damage is suffered, [Gomez v. Dykes, 89 Ariz. 171, 359 P.2d 760, 82 A. L.R.2d 1093 (1961); Jacob v. Miner, 67. Ariz. 109, 191 P.2d 734 (1948)], but may be allowed when there is substantial actual' damage, but the amount awarded is “nominal” only because of the difficulty in measurement. See, Finney v. Lockhart, 35 Cal. 2d 161, 217 P.2d 19 (1950); Winkler v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 66 N.J.Super. 22, 168 A.2d 418 (1961); Fauver v. Wilkoske, 123 Mont. 228, 211 P.2d 420, 17 A.L.R.2d 518 (1949); See also, 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 242; Note, 70 Harv.L.Rev. 517, 528-29 (1957).