3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 4.8.2

100

Last updated March 2026

that evidence is undisputed, 131 it is error to instruct the jury on nominal damages, at least if the 1

nominal damages instruction is emphasized to the exclusion of appropriate instructions on 2

compensatory damages.132 In Pryer v. C.O. 3 Slavic, the district court granted a new trial, based 3

partly on the ground that because the plaintiff had presented “undisputed proof of actual injury, an 4

instruction on nominal damages was inappropriate.” Pryer v. C.O. 3 Slavic , 251 F.3d 448, 452 5

(3d Cir. 2001). In upholding the grant of a new trial, the Court of Appeals noted that “ nominal 6

damages may only be awarded in the absence of proof of actual injury.” See id. at 453. The court 7

observed that the district court had “recognized that he had erroneously instructed the jury on 8

nominal damages and failed to inform it of the availability of compensatory damages for pain and 9

suffering.” Id. Accordingly, the court held that “[t]he court's error in failing to instruct as to the 10

availability of damages for such intangible harms, coupled with its emphasis on nominal damages, 11

rendered the totality of the instructions confusing and misleading.” Id. at 454. 12

131 Cf. Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[N]ominal damages may

be appropriate where a jury reasonably concludes that the plaintiff's evidence of injury is not

credible.”).

132 Cf. Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d 1266, 1269-70 (3d Cir. 1987) (in case tried without

a jury, holding that it was error to award only nominal damages because the plaintiff “demonstrated

that he suffered actual injury” by testifying “that while in punitive segregation he lost his regular

visiting and phone call privileges, his rights to recreation and to use the law library, and his wages

from his job”).