“A Trivial Sum, Not a Treasure Chest” – Georgia Supreme Court Re-defines the Ceiling on Nominal Damages in Walmart Stores East, LP v. Leverette

Introduction

On 24 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia delivered a landmark opinion in Walmart Stores East, LP v. Leverette, decisively holding that nominal damages in Georgia are limited to a trivial sum and cannot extend into substantial monetary territory. The ruling vacates a $1 million “nominal” damages award granted to Bettie Leverette after a low-speed collision with a 2,000-pound pallet in a Walmart store. Beyond resolving the immediate dispute, the Court repudiates more than a century of Court of Appeals authority that treated nominal damages as having no maximum, steering Georgia damages jurisprudence back to its English common-law roots.

Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court unanimously (8-0) held that nominal damages are, by definition, confined to an inconsequential amount—historically a shilling, six cents, or one dollar.
  • It overruled a line of Court of Appeals cases (1910-2024) permitting nominal damages into six- and seven-figure ranges.
  • The $1 million award below was deemed irrational because no rational juror could view that amount as trivial.
  • However, the Court remanded for the lower courts to decide two unresolved, fact-specific questions:
    • Whether Walmart invited error by requesting the challenged instruction and verdict form, thereby precluding relief; and
    • What the proper procedural remedy is (e.g., new trial on damages, remittitur to a token amount, or entry of a $0 verdict).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • English Common-Law Authorities – Blackstone, Sutherland, Sedgwick and numerous 18th- & 19th-century English cases established that nominal damages exist solely to vindicate rights when no actual loss is proven, and must be “trifling.”
  • Georgia Adoption Statute (OCGA § 1-1-10(c)(1)) – The Court underscores that the 1784 legislative act imported the whole of English common law into Georgia, meaning courts cannot alter it absent further legislative action.
  • Sellers v. Mann, 113 Ga. 643 (1901) – Frequently misread as permitting limitless nominal damages, Sellers held only that a verdict stating “nominal damages” without specifying the amount is void for uncertainty. The Supreme Court re-characterises its expansive language as dictum.
  • Western Union Tel. Co. v. Glenn (1910) → MTW v. Alcovy (2005) → Leverette (2024) – Court of Appeals cascade relying on Sellers’ dictum, now expressly overruled.
  • U.S. Supreme Court in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021) – Cited for the historic function of nominal damages as a declaration of rights, not as compensation.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Common-Law Continuity Presumption
    Unless the General Assembly clearly changes a common-law rule, courts must enforce it. The legislature enacted no authority suggesting that “nominal” can mean “substantial.”
  2. Definition of “Nominal”
    Historical treatment shows nominal damages are a sum spoken of but having no existence in point of quantity. One million dollars plainly fails that test.
  3. Dicta vs. Holding
    The Court distinguishes binding holdings from mere commentary. Sellers’ sliding-scale language was non-essential dicta and therefore cannot trump common-law principles.
  4. Judicial Role Boundaries
    Georgia courts may say what the law is, not what it should be. Only the legislature may enlarge nominal damages.

Potential Impact

  • Immediate – Trials henceforth must ensure jury charges clarify that nominal damages are token amounts (likely a dollar or less). Verdict forms should avoid inviting large “nominal” sums.
  • Cost-Shifting Statutes – Awards under $10 or $50 in some contexts entitle a plaintiff to limited or no costs; plaintiffs who rely on nominal damages to recover costs must now temper expectations.
  • Strategic Litigation – Plaintiffs may pursue declaratory or injunctive relief rather than banking on sizeable nominal damages if compensatory proof is weak.
  • Legislative Response – The General Assembly could, if policy demands, create statutory minimums for certain rights violations (e.g., civil rights) akin to federal statutory-damage schemes.
  • Precedent Clean-Up – Trial and appellate courts must disregard the overruled “no maximum” line and revisit any pending appeals relying on it.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Nominal Damages – A symbolic, usually tiny sum (think $1) awarded when a right is violated but actual damages cannot be proved.
  • Dicta – Judicial musings not essential to the decision; persuasive at best, never binding.
  • Invited Error – A party cannot complain on appeal about an error it induced or agreed to below.
  • Common-Law Adoption Statute – A statute by which Georgia adopted English judge-made law as of 1776; this “frozen” common law carries statutory force until modified by the legislature.
  • Remittitur vs. New Trial – Remittitur reduces an excessive verdict; a new trial re-opens the fact-finding process. Which path is chosen often depends on trial-level error and procedural posture.

Conclusion

Walmart v. Leverette restores a centuries-old understanding that nominal damages are about principle, not profit. By capping such awards at an amount any rational person would deem negligible, the Georgia Supreme Court:

  • Re-anchors Georgia tort and contract damages to their English roots;
  • Eliminates judicially-created latitude for “windfall” nominal awards;
  • Provides clear guidance for trial courts, litigants, and juries; and
  • Signals that any expansion of nominal damages must emanate from the legislature, not the bench.

The decision is thus both a doctrinal correction and an instruction in judicial restraint, reaffirming that rights-vindication must not masquerade as compensatory relief. Future litigants seeking meaningful monetary recovery must supply meaningful proof, or settle for the token recognition that the term “nominal damages” truly implies.