## Facts

- A brick mason sued a construction company in federal court (diversity) for personal injuries from a scaffold collapse.
- The complaint demanded damages “not to exceed $100,000.”
- On the day of trial, the plaintiff moved to amend the demand to $250,000; the district court denied the motion.
- The defendant primarily contested liability and did not focus its trial strategy on limiting the amount of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict of $150,000; after an offset for a prior payment by another party, judgment was entered for $135,000.
- After the verdict, the plaintiff moved to amend the ad damnum clause to $150,000 to match the verdict; the district court granted the motion.
- The defendant appealed, seeking to reduce the judgment on the theory that recovery could not exceed the original $100,000 demand (less the offset).

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may permit a post-verdict amendment increasing the ad damnum clause to conform to the jury’s verdict when the amendment does not alter proof of material facts and the defendant shows no actual prejudice.
2. Whether, in federal court, the amount demanded in the complaint caps the damages that may be awarded in the final judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the district court did not err by allowing the post-verdict amendment of the ad damnum clause from $100,000 to $150,000.
- The court rejected the defendant’s request for remittitur based on the original demand.
- The court relied on the liberal federal approach to amendments and on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), which permits relief beyond what is demanded in the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Amendments to an ad damnum clause should be allowed unless the change alters the required proof of a material fact or there is another concrete reason to deny the amendment, such as actual prejudice to the opposing party.
- Speculation that a party would have tried the case differently, cross-examined more, or argued damages more forcefully is insufficient to show prejudice.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), a final judgment may award the relief to which a party is entitled even if that relief exceeds the amount demanded in the pleadings.
- A post-verdict amendment conforming the demand for relief to the verdict is permissible when it does not inject new issues and the opposing party had a fair opportunity to litigate liability and damages.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that, absent a showing of actual prejudice or a change in proof of material facts, a plaintiff may amend an ad damnum clause after a verdict to match the jury’s award, and Rule 54(c) permits damages exceeding the amount originally demanded.


Bail v. Cunningham Bros., Inc., 452 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1971)