LEGAL PRINCIPLE: DAMAGES – Assessment – Basis for Interference on Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Alteration of an award of damages will be made only if the award is shown to be either manifestly too high or manifestly too low or was an award made on a wrong principle.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"In any case, alteration of an award of damages will be made only if the award is shown to be either manifestly too high or manifestly too low or was an award made on a wrong principle."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Damages assessment involves judicial discretion within a reasonable range. Appellate courts defer to trial court assessments unless: (1) Manifestly too high—so excessive no reasonable judge could award it, suggesting error or passion; (2) Manifestly too low—so inadequate it fails to compensate the injury; or (3) Wrong principle—incorrect legal basis (compensating non-recoverable heads, double compensation, ignoring relevant factors, applying wrong measure). “Manifestly” sets a high threshold—not merely higher or lower than the appellate court would award, but outside the range of reasonable assessments. This deference recognizes trial courts’ advantages: hearing evidence firsthand, observing injury impact, and assessing credibility. It prevents endless appeals over damages disagreements and promotes finality. Appellate interference is limited to clear errors in principle or amounts so unreasonable they shock judicial conscience