Non-Economic Damages
Non-economic damages are a category of compensatory damages that compensate a personal injury plaintiff for intangible, subjective losses that do not have a precise monetary value. In contrast to economic damages — which can be calculated based on medical bills, pay stubs, and other objective financial records — non-economic damages reflect the profound human cost of injury: the suffering, the diminished quality of life, the emotional toll, and the loss of meaningful personal relationships that serious injuries impose on victims and their families.
The primary types of non-economic damages include pain and suffering (both physical and emotional), mental anguish, post-traumatic stress disorder, loss of enjoyment of life (the inability to engage in hobbies, sports, and activities that previously brought joy), disfigurement and scarring, loss of consortium (loss of the benefits of a marital relationship), and embarrassment or humiliation. In cases of catastrophic injury — quadriplegia, traumatic brain injury, severe burns, or the loss of a limb — non-economic damages can represent the largest single component of the total damages award.
Calculating non-economic damages is inherently subjective, and courts and juries must use their judgment to translate human suffering into a dollar amount. Plaintiff's attorneys typically present evidence of non-economic harm through the plaintiff's own testimony, testimony from family members and friends who have observed the impact of the injury on the plaintiff's daily life, and expert testimony from mental health professionals and life care planners. Day-in-the-life videos that document the plaintiff's daily challenges and limitations can be particularly powerful evidence.
Many states have enacted caps on non-economic damages through tort reform legislation, particularly in medical malpractice cases. These caps — which often range from $250,000 to $750,000 on non-economic damages — have been the subject of intense legal and political debate. Proponents argue that caps reduce insurance costs and prevent runaway jury verdicts. Critics argue that caps arbitrarily limit compensation for the most seriously injured plaintiffs — typically those whose economic losses are smallest precisely because their injuries prevent them from working.