Legal Definitions - onerous gift

The one-satisfaction rule is a fundamental legal principle stating that a person who has suffered harm is entitled to only one full recovery for that specific harm, regardless of how many different parties might be responsible or how many legal theories could apply. If a plaintiff receives multiple awards or settlements for the same injury or loss, the total amount recovered will be adjusted to ensure they do not receive more than their actual damages. This rule prevents a plaintiff from being overcompensated or receiving "double recovery" for a single injury.

Here are some examples illustrating the one-satisfaction rule:

• Example 1: Multiple Responsible Parties

  Imagine a pedestrian, Sarah, is severely injured when she is hit by a car driven by Mark, who was distracted. The accident was also partly caused by faulty brakes on Mark's car, which were recently serviced by a mechanic, David. Sarah sues both Mark and David for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Before trial, Sarah reaches a settlement with David for $50,000. She then proceeds to trial against Mark, and the jury awards her $150,000 in total damages. Under the one-satisfaction rule, the $150,000 jury verdict against Mark would typically be reduced by the $50,000 Sarah already received from David. This means Sarah would ultimately recover $100,000 from Mark, ensuring her total recovery for her injuries does not exceed the jury's assessment of $150,000, even though two different parties contributed to the harm.

• Example 2: Election of Remedies for the Same Loss

  A small business owner, Alex, hires a web developer, Chris, to build a new e-commerce website. Chris fails to deliver the website on time and the work that is completed is riddled with errors, causing Alex to lose significant sales. Alex sues Chris, alleging both breach of contract (for failing to fulfill the agreement) and fraud (claiming Chris intentionally misrepresented his skills and ability to complete the project). Both claims seek to recover the same economic loss: the cost to hire a new developer to fix the website and the lost profits from delayed sales. If a jury finds Chris liable for both breach of contract and fraud and awards damages for the lost profits under both legal theories, Alex would be required to "elect" which remedy to accept for that specific economic loss. Alex cannot recover the lost profits twice—once for breach of contract and again for fraud—because the underlying harm (the lost profits) is the same. The one-satisfaction rule ensures Alex receives compensation for the lost profits only once.