## Facts

- Robert Right’s vehicle was rear-ended by Kimberly Breen at a red light in May 2000.
- The collision caused minor vehicle damage, and no physical injuries were reported at the scene.
- Right sued Breen for negligence, claiming bodily injury and seeking economic and noneconomic damages.
- Breen admitted she caused the collision but denied that the collision caused any of Right’s claimed injuries.
- Evidence showed Right had been involved in multiple other automobile accidents before and after this collision, supporting Breen’s causation defense.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding zero economic and zero noneconomic damages.

## Issues

1. In a negligence action, does a defendant’s admission of negligence entitle the plaintiff, as a matter of law, to nominal damages when the defendant disputes causation and the jury awards zero damages?
2. Does the “technical legal injury” doctrine apply to negligence so as to confer prevailing-party status and costs absent proof of actual injury?

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court.
- The court held that a negligence plaintiff is not entitled to nominal damages as a matter of law when the defendant admits negligence but denies causing actual injury and the jury awards no damages.
- The court remanded with directions to render judgment for Breen and to adjust the order of costs accordingly.
- The court rejected applying a “technical legal injury” theory to negligence and limited prior precedent to the extent it suggested otherwise.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and actual injury; without actual injury, the claim fails and no damages are recoverable.
- An admission of negligent conduct (or “liability” in the sense of causing a collision) does not substitute for proof that the conduct caused compensable injury.
- Nominal damages are generally associated with intentional torts where the invasion of a right itself constitutes the injury; that rationale does not extend to negligence where injury is unintentional and must be proven.
- A zero-damages verdict in a negligence case may reflect a failure to prove causation and actual injury, defeating recovery and related claims to prevailing-party costs.

## Conclusion

The court held that negligence is not actionable without proof of actual injury, so a plaintiff cannot obtain nominal damages—and the attendant costs benefits—based solely on a defendant’s admission of negligent conduct when the jury finds no compensable harm.


Right v. Breen, 277 Conn. 364, 890 A.2d 1287 (Conn. 2006)