Can you please provide some contect and detail as to how this question(s) have come to be on your ask list?
I am sure that I cannot give you a useful answer until I understand the context in which you are asking the question.
Thanks
Ok, thanks...
You and plaintiff had a contract that encompasses and presumably governs the issue as to their claims for damages over the stairs -- is that correct?
If so, can you explain the nature of the agreement? Was there a contractual arbitration already and now you are in a post-arb period where the plaintiff has rejected the arb verdict and decided to sue in court as the contract must allow?
If not, please explaint your relationship to plaintiff as it pertains to the stairs....
In the end, if your relationship as it pertains to the stairs is contractual, then your duties and the scope thereof (or, your lack of duties) are going to be determined by the court's interpretation of the contract. if there is some other relationship as it pertains to the stairs, such as a landlord tentant relationship, different standards will apply as to duties.
Ultimately though, property damages are damages, and if they cannot show that they have been damaged in the amount of 7K that they have incurred or expended, or, that they are contractually entitled to 7k from you -- they will not get 7k, or, anything else.
You do not get "nominal" damages in a a property damage case -- wither you have a casualty or contractual property damage claim and can prove it, or, you do not.
Sure, absent a valid contractual agreement to the contrary, or a fee-shifting statute (not an issue here), or serious abuse of process, the general rule in the US is that each side bears its own attorneys fees and costs in civil litigation.
Your abitrator knows this rule darn well, and, knows that although everyone asks for their attorneys in theor complaints, no one gets them absent the circumstances above.
Indeed, absent a contract that clearly and validly says "loser pays the others fees", you should not be ordered to pay their attorney fees even if they prove their damages ARE 7K for the stairs.
Is it clear that the statute applies?
If so, then, the next line of defense if they "succeed" and claim the fees is of course to argue that they did not meet the statutory criteria for award of fees, the fee claims are excessive, etc.
I have been involved in attorney fee litigation which has become a case within a case more than once. Generally, pigs get slaughtered, so even if they win and convince the court that they meet the criteria for fee award -- 15K on a 7K damage claim is an easy target for you to knock down.
Ok, your question merges two separate issues, liability and damages.
First, no, it is not a default position for a defendant to simply succeed with a defense verdict where a plaintiff "claims" X dollars in damages in their complaint and/or attempts to offer proof of the same X dollars at trial and fails to prove X, but, does prove a lesser amount Y. If your plaintiff tries and fails to prove that you are liable for 7K, but does prove you are liable for 3k, then so you are. If your plaintiff proves that it sustained 700K, or $50, or 7K in damages but cannot prove that your are liable to it, then you are not liable for anything.
So, you need to make 2 separate attacks on their proof: (1) I am not legally liable to plaintiff, period AND (2) even if the court finds me legally liable, I am only liable in this ________ amount, not the amount claimed.
These attacks are made routinely at the same time at trial. So, first, they must try to prove you are at fault and you should poke holes in their proof as much as you can, and, second, they must also try to prove their damages, upon which you do the same thing. Then, when it's your case, if you have contrary evidence on liability or damages or both,
you put it in the record just as plaintiff did during their case. And, finally, when everyone has concluded their proof, you argue the evidence to the court and insist that it favors you on liability, but, also argue that -- even if the court disagrees on liability -- the damages are only _ low amount.
If you make sure to distinguish these concepts you will have a correct orientation to defend a case. Plaintiff has the burden of proof on liability and damages, so you need to attack their case on both fronts to try and get the best result.
I hope that this was helpful to you. If it was please remember to click "ACCEPT" on your screen to make sure that I am paid for my efforts. By clicking ACCEPT you are not giving up your right to ask more questions on this issue, and I will be happy to respond to these as well
Attorney
Practicing attorney for 17 years and principal of law firm.