Georgia Supreme Court Redefines Nominal Damages In Walmart V. Leverette – What It Means For Personal Injury Litigation

On June 24, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Walmart Stores East, LP v. Leverette (S24G1104), fundamentally reshaping the landscape of nominal damages in Georgia. This ruling not only clarifies the legal definition of nominal damages but also has significant implications for how Personal Injury Cases will be litigated moving forward. As an experienced Georgia personal injury attorney, I’ll break down the case, summarize the Court’s decision, and analyze its impact on future injury litigation.

Case Background

The case arose from an incident on April 25, 2018, when Bettie Leverette, shopping on a motorized scooter at a Walmart in Conyers, was struck by a 2,000-pound box being moved by two employees. The contact was described as light, and Leverette initially continued shopping. However, she later sought medical attention for symptoms including head pain, blurred vision, and nausea, eventually being diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome.

Leverette sued Walmart, alleging negligence and claiming her symptoms stemmed from the incident. At trial, her family testified about her deteriorating condition, including confusion, headaches, and inability to work or drive. Expert testimony estimated her future medical care costs at $2 million to $3.5 million. Walmart countered that Leverette’s symptoms were due to pre-existing conditions and argued she was entitled to nominal damages at most, suggesting amounts like $10, $100, or $500.

The jury awarded Leverette $1 million in “nominal damages,” leaving blank the options for future care expenses and pain and suffering on the verdict form. Walmart appealed, arguing the award was excessive. The Court of Appeals affirmed, citing precedent that nominal damages had “no maximum” limit. The Georgia Supreme Court granted review to determine the limits of nominal damages under Georgia law.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Georgia Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Pinson, overturned the Court of Appeals’ precedent and vacated the $1 million nominal damages award. The Court’s key findings include:

• Nominal Damages Defined by Common Law: Georgia adopted English common law in 1784, including the rule that nominal damages are a “trivial sum” awarded when a plaintiff proves a violation of legal rights but fails to prove actual damages with sufficient certainty. Historically, this was a shilling in England or a few cents to a dollar in early America.
• Rejection of “No Maximum” Precedent: The Court overruled Court of Appeals decisions, such as W. Union Tel. Co. v. Glenn (1910) and others, which allowed large nominal damages awards based on a “sliding-scale” approach. These decisions stemmed from dicta in Sellers v. Mann (1901), which suggested nominal damages could vary based on the case’s circumstances. The Supreme Court clarified that Sellers did not alter the common law rule that nominal damages must be trivial.
• $1 Million Not Trivial: The Court held that $1 million is not a “trivial sum” by any rational measure, far exceeding historical nominal damages awards (e.g., $2,500 in 1869, equivalent to $59,000 today). Thus, the award was impermissible.
• Case-Specific Issues Remanded: The Court did not vacate the jury’s verdict outright, remanding the case to address two issues:
  • Whether Walmart invited the error by requesting a nominal damages instruction without defining its limits and suggesting inappropriate amounts in closing arguments.
  • The appropriate remedy, given the unclear jury instructions and verdict form, which may require a new trial on damages or other relief.

Analysis: Impact On personal Injury Litigation

The Walmart v. Leverette decision marks a significant shift in Georgia’s personal injury landscape, particularly regarding nominal damages. Here’s how it will change litigation moving forward:

• Stricter Limits on Nominal Damages:
  • Clear Definition: Nominal damages are now firmly defined as a “trivial sum,” typically in the range of a dollar or slightly more, aligning with historical common law. This eliminates the possibility of juries awarding large sums as “nominal” damages, as seen in prior cases (e.g., $625,000 in MTW Inv. Co. v. Alcovy Props.).
  • Impact on Strategy: Plaintiffs’ attorneys must now ensure they present robust evidence of actual damages (e.g., medical costs, pain and suffering) to secure substantial awards. Relying on nominal damages as a fallback for weak proof of actual harm is no longer viable for significant recoveries.
• Increased Scrutiny of Jury Instructions:
  • The Court highlighted the trial court’s failure to define nominal damages in the jury instructions, which likely contributed to the $1 million award. Moving forward, attorneys must advocate for precise instructions that clarify nominal damages as trivial sums to avoid juror confusion.
  • Defendants, like Walmart, risk “invited error” if they propose vague instructions or suggest inappropriate nominal damages amounts, as this could bar them from challenging excessive awards.
• Verdict Form Clarity:
  • The special verdict form in this case, with a separate line for nominal damages, may have misled the jury. Attorneys will need to ensure verdict forms clearly distinguish between nominal and compensatory damages and align with proper legal definitions to prevent similar errors.
• Heightened Burden of Proof for Actual Damages:
  • The ruling underscores the common law principle that substantial damages require proof of actual harm with sufficient certainty. In personal injury cases, plaintiffs must bolster their cases with medical records, expert testimony, and other evidence to link injuries to the defendant’s actions, especially when defendants argue pre-existing conditions, as Walmart did here.
  • Cases with minimal or disputed injuries may result in nominal awards (e.g., $1), pushing plaintiffs to settle early or risk low recoveries.
• Potential for New Trials:
  • The remand for case-specific issues suggests that unclear jury instructions or verdict forms could lead to new trials on damages. This increases the stakes for both sides to get it right at trial, as post-trial challenges may not simply reduce awards but could restart the process.
• Defendant Strategies:
  • Defendants may increasingly argue for nominal damages in cases with weak evidence of causation or damages, knowing the ceiling is now low. However, they must avoid overreaching, as suggesting inflated nominal amounts (as Walmart did) could undermine their position on appeal.

Practical Takeaways For Clients

For those injured in Georgia, this ruling emphasizes the importance of building a strong case from the outset. Here’s what you need to know:

• Document Everything: Keep detailed records of medical visits, expenses, and how your injury affects your life. This evidence is critical to proving actual damages and avoiding a nominal award.
• Work with Experts: Medical and economic experts can strengthen your case by linking your injuries to the incident and quantifying your losses.
• Choose Experienced Counsel: An attorney familiar with Georgia’s evolving legal landscape can navigate these new rules, ensuring proper jury instructions and verdict forms to maximize your recovery.

Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart v. Leverette restores the traditional common law understanding of nominal damages as trivial sums, overturning decades of precedent that allowed inflated awards. For personal injury litigants, this means a greater focus on proving actual damages, clearer jury instructions, and carefully crafted verdict forms. As a dedicated Georgia personal injury lawyer, I’m committed to adapting to these changes to secure fair compensation for my clients.

If you’ve been injured and need guidance on how this ruling affects your case, contact my office today for a free consultation. Let’s ensure your rights are protected and your recovery reflects the true extent of your harm.

George Creal is a seasoned Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer with a proven track record of advocating for clients in complex litigation. This blog post is for informational purposes and not legal advice. For specific guidance, consult with a qualified attorney.