“Status Quo Ante” and “Compensatory Damages”
Published .
The general concept
Status quo ante means the state of affairs that existed before a particular event. Compensatory damages are money awarded to address the loss caused by a legal wrong. The phrase “restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante” is a useful way to describe the goal of tort compensation, but it is not a promise that money can literally undo an injury or return every part of life to its prior condition. Contract damages often use a different comparison: they seek to give the injured party the value of the promised performance. In either setting, a court uses money to value the losses the evidence supports.
How Maryland applies it
In a Maryland tort case, the plaintiff may seek economic and noneconomic losses naturally flowing from the wrong and proved to have been caused by it. Depending on the injury, these may include medical expenses, lost earnings, disfigurement, and physical or emotional pain and suffering. This award compensates the plaintiff’s losses. Restitution instead seeks to prevent unjust enrichment; rescission may unwind a transaction and restore the parties to their former positions. The evidence must support the claimed losses. The law does not permit speculative or duplicate recovery, or a windfall. Damage caps, the collateral-source rule, and other statutes may also affect recovery. In a personal-injury case, “status quo ante” is an explanatory aim, not a separate claim or a mechanical damages formula.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Smith v. Borello, 370 Md. 227, 804 A.2d 1151 (2002).; Consumer Protection Division v. Consumer Publishing Co., 304 Md. 731, 501 A.2d 48 (1985).; Luskin’s, Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division, 353 Md. 335, 726 A.2d 702 (1999).