Legal Definitions - One-satisfaction rule

The One-satisfaction rule is a fundamental legal principle that states a person who has suffered an injury or loss is entitled to receive full compensation for that harm, but only once. This rule prevents a plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) from recovering multiple times for the exact same damage or injury, ensuring fairness to defendants and preventing unjust enrichment. It applies in situations where a plaintiff might receive compensation from several sources or through different legal claims for the same underlying harm.

Here are some examples illustrating the One-satisfaction rule:

• Scenario 1: Multiple Parties Responsible for the Same Injury

  Imagine a construction worker who suffers a severe back injury when a faulty scaffold collapses. The worker sues both the company that manufactured the scaffold (claiming a product defect) and the construction company that assembled and maintained it (claiming negligence). A jury finds both parties liable for the worker's back injury and awards $200,000 for medical expenses and lost wages related to that specific injury.

  How it illustrates the rule: Under the One-satisfaction rule, the worker can only collect that $200,000 once for the back injury. If the scaffold manufacturer pays the full $200,000, the worker cannot then demand another $200,000 from the construction company for the *same* back injury. The construction company's obligation for that specific harm would be considered satisfied by the manufacturer's payment, ensuring the worker is compensated fully but not excessively for the single injury.

• Scenario 2: Compensation from Insurance and a Lawsuit

  A homeowner's property is significantly damaged by a burst pipe due to a plumber's negligent installation. The homeowner's insurance policy covers the water damage and pays out $30,000 for repairs and temporary living expenses. The homeowner then sues the negligent plumber for the same damage and expenses, seeking compensation for the faulty work.

  How it illustrates the rule: If the court awards the homeowner $35,000 for the total damage and expenses caused by the burst pipe, the plumber's payment obligation might be reduced by the $30,000 already received from the insurance company. This application of the One-satisfaction rule ensures the homeowner receives a total of $35,000 for the damage, not $30,000 from insurance *plus* $35,000 from the plumber for the identical repairs and expenses.

• Scenario 3: Multiple Damage Awards for the Same Loss

  A small business owner sues a former employee for breach of a non-compete agreement, claiming the employee stole client lists and directly competed, causing a significant drop in revenue. The jury, in its verdict, awards the business owner $75,000 for "lost profits" due to the employee's actions and separately awards another $75,000 for "damage to business value" which, in this specific context, largely represents the same lost customer base and resulting revenue decline.

  How it illustrates the rule: A court applying the One-satisfaction rule might determine that "lost profits" and "damage to business value" are, in this instance, different ways of compensating for the *same* underlying economic harm – the revenue lost due to the employee's competitive actions. To prevent double recovery for the identical economic injury, the business owner might be required to choose between the two awards or have one reduced, ensuring they receive full compensation for the financial loss, but only once.