What are general damages?

The general rule of damages in tort is that the injured party may recover for all detriment caused whether it could have been anticipated or not. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3333; Hunt Bros. Co. v. San Lorenzo etc. Co. [(1906)] 150 Cal. 51, 56.) The recoverable damages include “special” or “general” damages. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1601.)

Special and General Damages

“Special” damages consist of all economic (i.e., out-of-pocket) losses caused by the injury that can be documented by bills, receipts, and other records. (Id. at 1599.)

“General” damages consist of the noneconomic or intangible losses that result from the injury complained of, such as pain and suffering and other forms of loss that are subjective and not directly quantifiable by reference to bills or receipts. (Id.) General damages “may be proved under the ad damnum clause or general allegation of damage.” (Zvolanek v. Bodger Seeds, Ltd. (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 106, 108; Treadwell v. Whittier (1889) 80 Cal. 574, 579.)

A plaintiff must present evidentiary facts, not conclusions, regarding general damages; the types of evidence supporting an award of general damages include evidence disclosing that plaintiff suffered severe pain following the incident, “presently suffers from pain on a daily basis which creates functional lifestyle limitations, and will have chronic pain for the rest of [his] life.” (Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080 (1998).)

It “has traditionally been left to the trier of fact to assess the degree of harm suffered and to fix a monetary amount as just compensation.” (Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 54 Cal.3d 245, 263 (1991).) For example, “the law does not prescribe a definite standard or method to calculate compensation for pain and suffering. The jury is merely required to award an amount that is reasonable in light of the evidence.” (Damele v. Mack Trucks, 219 Cal.App.3d 29, 38 (1990).)

Useful Rulings on General Damages

Recent Rulings on General Damages

SHAUNA PAYNE VS RICHARD BOYD

In the 3rd cause of action, Boyd alleges that Payne is “liable for damages, including general damages, special damages, and punitive damages….” (Id., ¶21.) These allegations are conclusory and fail to allege specific facts regarding how Payne acted in a despicable, willful, or malicious way to give rise to punitive damages. Thus, the Court grants the motion to strike. The Court previously raised the defects of the pleading with regard to the motion to strike portions of the initial cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KIM V. PETS RX, INC., ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike As they did with their preceding motion to strike portions of the FAC, Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, emotional distress/general damages and loss of companionship claims.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ALESSANDRA M. STRAHL, TRUSTEE OF THE ALESSANDRA STRAHL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST U/T/D 0924-93. VS JNY INVESTMENTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Once Plaintiff files a request for dismissal of DOES, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request for default judgment as follows: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $24,490.70 $24,490.70 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $0.00 $0.00 Costs $1,025.12 $1,025.12 Attorney's fees $0.00 $0.00 $25,515.82 $25,515.82

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

Viewsonic is correct that prejudgment interest is not permitted as far as Plaintiff seeks general damages. However, to the extent that Plaintiff claims special/economic damages prejudgment interest is Permitted in the discretion of the factfinder. (See Civ. Code § 3288; see also Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TULIA ESTHER ARCE MENDOZA VS WINSOR SERVICES INC ET AL

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $282,924.25, comprising $150,000 in special damages, $46,800 in general damages, $4,779 in pre-judgment interest, $5,095.25 in costs, and $76,250 in attorney fees. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported her request with the submitted declarations and evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the Court has signed the judgment. No appearance at the hearing is necessary.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GARY MARSH, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CASTING NETWORK OF AMERICA, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

Principal Damages Plaintiff Gary Marsh (“Marsh”) requests general damages of $300,000 to reflect $100,000 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $100,000 for emotional distress, and $100,000 for damages to reputation. State. Case 10. “[Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 580, subdivision (a) limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint.” Dhawan v. Biring, 241 Cal. App. 4th 963, 968-69 (2015).

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

ISABELLE BROGGER VS JOIE RUSSO D O ET AL

Plaintiff’s MICRA-limited general damages total $250,000.00. (Gutterman Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s special damages total $368,742.00. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s total damages equates $618,742.00. (Ibid.) Defendant Thrifty Payless, Inc.’s Motion Defendant Thrifty Payless, Inc. argues the settlement was not made in good faith.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S) VS YOUNG C YANG

Default judgment is entered as follows: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $52,434.41 $52,434.41 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $0.00 $0.00 Costs $580.00 $580.00 Attorney's fees $0.00 $0.00 $53,014.41 $53,014.41

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

PORTER RENTS, LLC VS NEXTECH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

The Court GRANTS Entry of Default Judgement in the amount of $119,925.21 as indicated below: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $99,598.47 $99,598.47 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $16,897.28 $16,896.27 Costs $548.50 $548.50 Attorney's fees $2,881.97 $2,881.97 $119,926.22 $119,925.21 Plaintiff’s counsel to prepare the judgment for the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

YVONNE BARRO VS JOHN EIKER ET AL

When adding her counsel’s priority lien and her general damages claim, she argues Sedgwick’s “lien” precludes her from obtaining a “full recovery”. She also argues a worker’s compensation carrier is not entitled to recovery for certain benefits such as a qualified medical examination and Sedgwick has not shown which costs it is seeking to recover. However, Barro does not identify any of the actual costs that Sedgwick should not recover.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARTHA ALVAREZ ROMAN VS IGNACIO A BERRIO JIMENEZ ET AL

Berrion Jimenez, dba Max Auto Sales, and Igya Dimirci, dba JB Financial, in the total amount of $132,545.80, consisting of $29,422.40 in general damages, $55,916.04 in interest, $4,567.17 in costs, and $92,640.17 in attorney’s fees.[1] The court notes the following defects in Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by default.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAMES M. ENGLE VS GREGORY BLACKWELL

Default judgment is entered in the amount of $52,204.54 as indicated below: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $50,625.25 $50,625.25 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $0.00 $0.00 Costs $579.29 $579.29 Attorney's fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $52,204.54 $52,204.54

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GLOBAL TREND PRODUCTIONS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ATLANTA AUDIO-VISUALS, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION

On August 4, 2020, default was entered as to Defendant Worldwide Audio Visual Services, Inc. dba Atlanta Audio Visual ANALYSIS: The Court enters default judgment in the amount of $42,400.10 as indicated below: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $31,327.50 $31,327.50 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $9,108.78 $9,108.78 Costs $634.00 $634.00 Attorney's fees $1,329.82 $1,329.82 $42,400.10 $42,400.10

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JENNIFER L SHANNON-YEGANHE VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET

Plaintiff alleges that she “was physically and emotionally injured and incurred and will continue to incur medical and economic damages as well as general damages” because of the Defendant’s conduct. (Complaint, at p. 4, bold emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

STARSHIP, LLC., DBA ROCKSTAR VS SHADOW DENIM LAUNDRY, CORP., ET AL.

(BAJI 10.91 (General Damages/Loss of Profits); see Brandon & Tibbs v. George Kevorkian Accountancy Corp. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 442, 457.) Plaintiff’s Declarant attests that the exhibit shows that Plaintiff Starship suffered lost profits due to Defendants’ breach, because as a result of the breach, Plaintiff could not fulfill orders for its ZDDRK ZIDAN DARK apparel in the amounts of $22,737 and 20,764. (Mathey Decl. ¶ 10.) The declaration attaches an Order Line Item Detail showing orders in this amount.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

SEMAJ CATO VS SEONG HO IM, ET AL.

damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS RACHEL SZAMOWSKI,

The property and medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff, in addition to the claim for general damages, carry Plaintiffs’ burden of proof.Plaintiff's Motion must also demonstrate good cause for the timing of the request to reclassify, which is required by the statute. Ib.) The Complaint alleges the accident occurred on December 12, 2018. (Compl., ¶2.) Plaintiffs incurred the claimed $18,269.00 in medical expenses prior to the filing of this action. (Motion, Diaz Decl., Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TULIA ESTHER ARCE MENDOZA VS WINSOR SERVICES INC ET AL

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $282,924.25, comprising $150,000 in special damages, $46,800 in general damages, $4,779 in pre-judgment interest, $5,095.25 in costs, and $76,250 in attorney fees. The Court notes that the amount of the judgment set forth in Plaintiff’s proposed judgment ($139,924.25) does not match the amount of the judgment set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment ($282,924.25).

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CAROLYN THOMAS VS MARQUEZ PRODUCE, ET AL.

Further, Cross-Complainants argue Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages asserts Plaintiff’s damages total $636,000, comprised of $500,000 in general damages, $36,000 in special damages, and $100,000 in future medical expenses, and the subject settlement agreement is for less than one-sixth of the Plaintiff’s total damages amount, which is outside the ballpark of McGill’s proportional liability.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

KWAN KI KIM, ET AL. VS THE TERRACES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The HOA moves to strike the punitive damages allegations, the request for general damages, the request for attorney fees, and the request for statutory penalties. As for punitive damages, since the Court sustains the demurrer to the fraud and discrimination causes of action, the only remaining cause of action for which Plaintiffs seek punitive damages is the second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KWAN KI KIM, ET AL. VS THE TERRACES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

State Farm also moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request for general damages in support of the breach of contract cause of action. Because the demurrer to the breach of contract claim is sustained, the motion to strike is denied as moot. Lastly, State Farm moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest. Again, the Court does not find that this is improper. The question of whether Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest does not need to be determined at this stage in the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DIRECT CHASSISLINK INC. VS SFE LOGISTICS TWO INC, A CORPORATION

ANALYSIS: The request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the amount of $30,035.25 as indicated below: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $27,874.35 $27,874.35 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $462.00 $462.00 Costs $498.90 $498.90 Attorney's fees $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $30,035.25 $30,035.25

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JASON CRAIG DAVIS, ET AL., VS REGENT OF THE UNI.OF CALIF.

DHS then argues that this leaves total adjusted damages of general damages of $250,000, the reasonable value of past medicals (gross lien) in the sum of $1,058,640.65, projected future medicals not covered by Medi-Cal of $33,094.27, which totals $1,341,734.92. The ratio of Davis’s present third party recovery to his uncovered future damages ($1,000,000/$1,341,734.92) would be 74.5%.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

ROSA HERRERA VS JOSE ONTIVEROS JR, ET AL.

Punitive Damages, Attorney Fees, and General Damages A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GARCIA VS GARCIA

Given these allegations, the causes of action for IIED and fraud could give rise to general damages. Regarding the claim for punitive damages, it is not sufficient to allege merely that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. Edmon and Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 6:158.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 45     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.