Is it possible for a court to adjust damages awards upward beyond what is asked for?
<p>When a plaintiff (or counter-claimant) has only sought $1 in relief, do courts ever adjust that upward to reflect the true value of damages?</p>

<p>I don't know of any cases where a court <em>has</em> done this, but the law would permit it in an appropriate circumstance.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-appendix/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure/rules-of-civil-procedure-for-the-united-states-district-courts/rule-54-judgment-costs" rel="noreferrer">Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c)</a> federal courts in the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a> may grant relief beyond what the complaint demands:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The same is true in <a href="/questions/tagged/new-york" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-york&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;new-york&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-new-york-tooltip-container">new-york</a> under <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-civil-practice-law-and-rules/article-30-remedies-and-pleading/section-3017-demand-for-relief" rel="noreferrer">N.Y. C.P.L.R. Law § 3017</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The court may grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof <em>whether or not demanded</em>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a></p>
<p>Yes, it is possible for the jury to award more than is asked for, whether it was one dollar or another value.</p>
<p>In fact, in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker" rel="noreferrer">Bollea v. Gawker</a>, the plaintiff asked for $100 million.  The jury awarded $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.</p>
<p>(I will note that there was a lot of discussion that this showed the jury was uncommonly disgusted with Gawker.)</p>

<p>In <a href="/questions/tagged/france" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-france-tooltip-container">france</a>, the court is bound by the parties’ claims. See <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070716/LEGISCTA000006149635/#LEGISCTA000006149635" rel="noreferrer">articles 4 and 5 du code de procédure civile</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>L'objet du litige est déterminé par les prétentions respectives des parties. (...)
Le juge doit se prononcer sur tout ce qui est demandé et seulement sur ce qui est demandé.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The dispute is determined by the claims of all parties. (...)
The judge must rule on all which is asked, and only that which is asked.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Say I borrow your car, I return it with a broken window, and we end up at trial.</p>
<p>You claim that (1) you had to pay a mechanic €500 to fix the window and (2) you underwent significant emotional distress when seeing the broken window, worth €1 million. I claim that the window was already damaged when I borrowed the car, so I should not be held liable for anything; furthermore, in any case, the window could have been fixed for €100, and you did not have any significant emotional damage worth paying for.</p>
<p>The judge must rule within the bounds of your claims (1) and (2) (in that example I have not put forward any counterclaim). All the following would be grounds for a successful appeal:</p>
<ul>
<li>the judge rules I owe you €250 for the broken window, and does not say anything about emotional distress. Or alternatively, that €1m for emotional damages is absolutely ridiculous and dismisses the case without saying anything about the repair cost. That would be <em>infra petita</em> (ruling on less than what was asked); each claim must be addressed separately (if only to say, &quot;and because of the same reasoning, claims 2, 7 and 11 also fail&quot;).</li>
<li>the judge rules I owe you €1000 for the broken window, and nothing for emotional distress. That would be <em>ultra petita</em>: they cannot give you more than what you asked for each item (even if the combined result is within the claim).</li>
<li>the judge rules I owe you €300 for the broken window, nothing for emotional distress, and €200 in lost wages for the day you missed work due to having to fix the car. That would be <em>extra petita</em>: they cannot rule on anything that was not raised specifically by the parties (again, even if it fits within the &quot;global envelope&quot; of the claims).</li>
</ul>
<p>I have never seen a general claim &quot;for any relief that would be just and proper&quot; (or similar). I suspect such a claim would be dismissed, but could not quickly find any case law on the subject. I would say it violates a combination of article 4 and <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006410099/2017-09-01" rel="noreferrer">article 6</a> - you must make specific claims and bring proof to establish each claim.</p>

<p>Typically, a Prayer for Relief (the part of the lawsuit documents that includes the listed Relief) will request &quot;Any other damages as the court sees fit&quot; which allows for this.  To my knowledge, it's not usually given beyond the damages sought, but does give the judge the ability to add on damages not directly sought.</p>

civil-law any-jurisdiction civil-judgment civil-damages nominal-damages