Section 8.17 Damages

• Library: Tort Law 2016

Although fraud is often labeled an "intentional" tort, unlike true intentional torts, proof of the commission of the tort alone is insufficient to sustain a cause of action. In other words, a plaintiff suing for fraudulent misrepresentation may not simply pray for a token or nominal award of damages, but must plead and prove substantial injury. See:

· Mills v. Keasler, 395 S.W.2d 111, 118 (Mo. 1965) ("where no damages are sustained as a result of the fraud charged, no action for damages may be maintained") (citing Bales v. Lamberton, 322 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. 1959))

· Lammers v. Greulich, 262 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo. 1953)

· MLJ Invs., Inc. v. Reid, 905 S.W.2d 900, 901–02 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995)

· Heberer v. Shell Oil Co., 744 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Mo. banc 1988)

· Grosser v. Kandel-Iken Builders, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 911, 916 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983)

In an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff may recover damages, both general and special, for any injury that was the "direct and natural consequence of plaintiff’s acting on the faith of defendant’s false representations." Refrigeration Indus., Inc. v. Nemmers, 880 S.W.2d 912, 917 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (quoting Rogers v. Hickerson, 716 S.W.2d 439, 446 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986)). Moreover, all damages sought must be shown to be an actual and proximate consequence of the misrepresentations made. Ackmann v. Keeney-Toelle Real Estate Co., 401 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Mo. banc 1966); see also:

· Thoroughbred Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 908 S.W.2d 719, 735 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995)

· Ellison v. Valley View Dairy, Inc., 905 S.W.2d 93, 98, 99 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995)

· Polar Trading, Inc. v. Amboy Closeouts, Inc., 899 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)

· Hanrahan v. Nashua Corp., 752 S.W.2d 878, 883 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988)

Generally, damages arising for mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, or other emotional harm are not recognized as recoverable in an action for fraud unless the tortfeasor acted maliciously or willfully. See Walsh v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 656 F.2d 367, 371 (8^th Cir. 1981) (applying Missouri law); Medlock v. Farmers State Bank of Tex. Cnty., 696 S.W.2d 873, 879 (Mo. App. S.D. 1985). This is because the tort of fraud is essentially economic in nature and, therefore, protects primarily pecuniary loss. Walsh, 656 F.2d 367. But see MAI 4.03 [1969 New], Notes on Use (1981 Revision) (implying damages may be recovered for personal injury caused by the misrepresentation); Jurcich v. Gen. Motors Corp., 539 S.W.2d 595, 601 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976) (damages for pain and suffering were recoverable in a fraud case when those damages arose out of a...