Noneconomic Damages

Damages for noneconomic losses are damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other intangible injuries. These damages involve no direct economic loss and have no precise value. It is very difficult for juries to assign a dollar value to these losses, given the minimal guidance they customarily receive from the court. As a result, these awards tend to be erratic and, because of the highly charged environment of personal injury trials, excessive.

The Problem

The broad and basically unguided discretion given juries in awarding damages for noneconomic loss is the single greatest contributor to the inequities and inefficiencies of the tort liability system. It is a difficult issue to address objectively because of the emotions involved in cases of serious injury and because of the financial interests of plaintiffs’ lawyers.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports a $250,000 limit on the award of noneconomic damages.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Noneconomic Damages

No related legislation or reform items to display.



Noneconomic Damages News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Noneconomic Damages

California Lawmakers Face Renewed Scrutiny for Inaction on Legal Reform, Placed on “Heat Watch” by National Report

Today, the American Tort Reform Association placed California’s legislatur...

Florida House Lands on “Lawsuit Inferno” List After Attempts to Overturn Landmark Legal Reforms

Today, the American Tort Reform Association named the Florida House of Rep...

New York Branded “Lawsuit Inferno” in Legislative HeatCheck

Today, the American Tort Reform Association named New York a “Lawsuit Infe...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Noneconomic Damages
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Dupont de Nemours and Company C-8 Litigation
(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly blended specific and general causation and that there is a vital distinction betwee...
6th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby No. 15-513
(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation of the “seal” requirement by relator in a false claims case should result in a dismis...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Robinson v. Pfizer
(8th. Cir., filed September 12, 2016): Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.  The Court must reign in th...
8th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Cerveny v. Aventis
(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state...
10th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite
(Miss., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff...
Mississippi
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Walker v. Ford
(Col., filed September 27, 2016): Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such ...
Colorado
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.