Brief Fact Summary. Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff but neither party reported any personal injuries at the scene. Plaintiff subsequently sued Defendant for negligence but could not prove causation or actual damages and Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his prior five auto accidents. Defendant prevailed.
Â
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Common law requires proof of causation and actual damages to support a cause of action in negligence.Â
Â
When, however, the trial court concludes, as a matter of law, that it is compelled to act in a particular fashion, plenary review is appropriate.
View Full Point of LawÂ
Issue. Whether a plaintiff may use the technical legal injury concept to recover damages in a negligence action where defendant has admitted to causing an accident, but where plaintiff cannot prove actual bodily injury.
Â
Held.  No. Under the technical legal injury concept, where the plaintiff’s right has been intentionally invaded, he can recover nominal and even exemplary damages, to serve as a deterrence to society. However, the technical legal injury concept does not apply to a negligence action where injury has occurred unintentionally. Common law requires proof of actual damages to support a cause of action in negligence.Â
Â
Discussion.  No. Under the technical legal injury concept, where the plaintiff’s right has been intentionally invaded, he can recover nominal and even exemplary damages, to serve as a deterrence to society. However, the technical legal injury concept does not apply to a negligence action where injury has occurred unintentionally. Common law requires proof of actual damages to support a cause of action in negligence.