Liability and Damages distinguished

I read a story recently where a passenger on an Indian airline sued the airline because it had served him a meal which had a chicken bone in it.  The passenger was a strict vegetarian because of his religion.  He claimed that he had suffered intense anguish as a result of spoiling his body with chicken.

The story intrigued me because, some years ago, I had a call from a gentleman with the identical problem.  I must confess, I did not take his problem too seriously.  I didn't figure that the case was worth enough to warrant hiring a lawyer.  Apparently, I was right, as the gentleman in India was awarded $215 in damages.

This case is an excellent example of the difference between liability and damages.  Most clients do not appreciate the difference between the two.  "Liability" means that a court has agreed with you that the other party has done something wrong to you.  "Liability" does not translate into dollars.  "Liability" only means that the other party is now liable to you for damages you MAY have suffered as a result of their wrong. 

"Damages" equals dollars.  Damages means the dollar value of the consequences of the wrong was inflicted on you.  There are two kinds of damages: special damages, which are identifiable monetary losses, and general damages, which are compensatory damages for pain and suffering, humiliation, etc.

Clients often (mistakenly) think general damages are a winning lottery ticket.  Part of this misconception is due to the fact that our southern neighbors produce no end of cases where people are rewarded with millions of dollars for relatively minor damages.  Thankfully, Canada has avoided that culture.  Here, damage awards  are more realistic and maybe even lower than they should be.

To succeed in court, you first have to prove liability.  Once you have proven liability, you then have to prove that you have actually suffered damages that resulted from the other party's wrong action.  If you don't prove any damages, you get nothing.

Here's an example: a commercial landlord owns a plaza.  One of his tenants abandons the unit in the plaza three years before the lease expires.  Fortunately, the landlord gets another tenant in there immediately and suffers no loss of rent.  How would a court look at this?  The tenant is liable to the landlord for breach of the lease.  However, the landlord has not suffered any damages, because the landlord did not lose any rent income.  Accordingly, the landlord has no case and would not bother going to court.

Even if the landlord lost one or two months' rent, it might not be worth landlord's effort to try to go to court to recover those damages.  Likewise, while the airline may be liable for failing to provide a vegetarian dinner as promised, the damages that arise from that failure were not significant enough to bother hiring a lawyer.