C. Damages

• Library: South Carolina Damages (SCBar) (2009 Ed.)

C. Damages

Recovery of damages in a civil rights suit is governed by federal, not state, standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a).³⁵ The Supreme Court has construed the statute to mean that "both federal and state rules on damages may be utilized, whichever better serves the policies expressed in the federal statutes."³⁶

1. Actual Damages

Actual damages are to be awarded "by the compensation principle" that "a person should be compensated fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights," as reflected in common law tort rules governing damages.³⁷ Thus, the Supreme Court has concluded, courts should apply the common law tort rules for the analogous tort with respect to both "the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery."³⁸ Applying the compensation principle, the Supreme Court has established two significant limits on damages recovery.

First, the injury claimed must have been caused by the alleged constitutional deprivation.³⁹ For example, if a state employee is discharged without procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment but the discharge is otherwise lawful, injuries flowing from the discharge (such as emotional distress or the job loss itself) are not compensable because he would have been discharged even had the government employer provided due process.⁴⁰

Second, and more fundamentally, without proof of actual injury, compensatory damages are generally precluded and only nominal damages may be awarded.⁴¹ For actual injury that is proved, a section 1983 plaintiff may recover the same sorts of damages as other tort plaintiffs, including past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, and benefits and compensation for noneconomic injuries such as emotional distress and pain and suffering.⁴² As under tort law rules, a section 1983 plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages.⁴³

Whether to let a jury damages award stand is within the district court's discretion and the district court will be reversed only if the award is "so 'untoward, inordinate, unreasonable or outrageous' as to be a denial of justice to allow it to stand."⁴⁴ This standard is not satisfied simply because an award "considerably exceed[s]" out-of-pocket expenses if there is substantial evidence of noneconomic injury "from which the jury could, and presumably did, find that [the plaintiffs] suffered extreme emotional distress."⁴⁵ The award must, however, "'be proportional to the actual injury incurred' and 'must focus on the real injury sustained.'"⁴⁶ In general, the Fourth Circuit has subjected emotional distress awards to special scrutiny.⁴⁷

2. Punitive Damages

The Supreme Court has determined that punitive damages may be awarded in a section 1983 suit "when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others ...even when the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages is one of recklessness."⁴⁸ This standard, "at a minimum, require[s] recklessness in its subjective form," something akin to "'knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.'"⁴⁹ And, importantly, "[t]he terms 'malice' and 'reckless indifference' pertain not to the employer's awareness that it is engaging in discrimination, but to its knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law."⁵⁰ Thus, it is not enough for a defendant to have "known" it was discriminating; it must also "know" the discrimination is illegal.

Punitive damages are recoverable under section 1983 only against an individual sued in his individual capacity; governmental entities are immune from punitive damages liability.⁵¹ The South Carolina Supreme Court has held, however, that a municipality may waive its immunity from punitive damages.⁵²

To be set aside as excessive, a punitive damages award must be "so 'grossly excessive' as to be beyond the power of the State to allow."⁵³ Although neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has specifically set out a standard for reviewing section 1983 punitive damages for excessiveness, it seems likely that such damages are subject to the same sort of federal due process review as state law punitive damages awarded in state court under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell.⁵⁴In State Farm the Supreme Court affirmed that "[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor."⁵⁵ The Supreme Court identified three "guideposts" for reviewing punitive damage awards: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.⁵⁶ The Court further "mandated" that appellate courts conduct "exacting" de novo review of the trial court's application of these guideposts.⁵⁷ While eschewing any "bright-line ratio which...