A. Necessity of Damages in Actions at Law

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

A. Necessity of Damages In Actions At Law

The theories of liability that may be espoused in any given action at law can be numerous, diverse and conflicting. However, with few exceptions,¹ the vast majority of all theories of liability in an action at law share a common denominator: the necessity of proof of injury and consequent damage before monetary recovery may be had. It is this point that serves as a main distinction between an action at law and an action in equity.²

It is also this point that has prompted courts to develop doctrines which have as their purpose the prevention of abuse in the recovery of damages. The requirement that a party seeking money damages must mitigate his damages is an example of such a doctrine, as is the prohibition against multiple recoveries for the same damage. The goals of this book are to provide a quick and easily accessible resource for the measure of damages recoverable for a panoply of causes of action and to lay out the additional considerations that must be taken into account in evaluating and assessing such damages.

1. Actions at Law Versus Actions in Equity

The distinction between an action at law and an action in equity is deeply rooted in South Carolina jurisprudence. During the Colonial Era a chancery court based in Charleston existed in various forms as a holdover from the English common law.³

Following the Revolutionary War, South Carolina's original state court system was premised on a separation between courts of equity, or chancery courts, and courts of law.⁴ This separation was abolished with the adoption of the South Carolina Constitution of1868 and the establishment therein of the Court of Common Pleas, which subsumed the common law and chancery courts.⁵

Regardless of the historical era under examination, the purpose of the chancery courts or of an action in equity has remained essentially the same: to provide a remedy where no adequate remedy exists at law.⁶

Although an examination of the Table of Contents for this Treatise seems to belie the idea that there may be a situation for which an adequate remedy at law does not exist, it is true that such situations can still arise. Where those situations do arise, there is an alternative in equity for the aggrieved party. In the vast majority of other instances, monetary damages awards in actions at law provide the remedy for the aggrieved party.

2. Recovery is Premised on the Existence of Damages

Where a party suffers an injury at the hands of another, asserts a claim in an action at law, and can prove liability and resulting damages, the injured party is entitled to recover those damages. As discussed in more detail below, and throughout the remainder of this Treatise, the types of recoverable...