Media’s frequent erroneous use of the plural noun “damages”

[Joe Carillo]

Cecil Morella of the Manila bureau of Agence France Presse sent me last July 24 the following note about the erroneous use of the plural noun “damages”:

“‘Damages’ (used by local newspapers and TV stations in the physical sense, as in, from Typhoon Conson, not the legal sense)”

He was obviously referring to the common misuse of the plural form of that word in news reporting like the following (underlining mine):

Coast Guard faces raps for damages

PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, Philippines—The Philippine Coast Guard is facing a lawsuit for environmental damages caused by one of its vessels that ran aground in May last year at the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park.

Marine park superintendent Angelique Songco told the Inquirer Saturday that they decided to file the case Friday before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office after the Coast Guard repeatedly ignored for over a year the park management’s communications urging the agency to settle the damages.

and also to this institutional report:

UPOU faces up

The University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) headquarters in Los Baños sustained an estimated 2.5 million pesos worth of damages to books and computers, physical facilities, and plants.

The two buildings in the UPOU headquarters sustained indoor damages to ceiling, windows, and furniture. And trees that were planted over the last 12 years were uprooted, according to UPOU Chancellor Felix Librero.

Cecil is absolutely right on this, of course, and newspaper reporters and editors are well-advised to avoid using the word “damages” in this erroneous way! In all the passages quoted above, the singular form “damage” should have been used instead. This is because the plural-form noun “damages” is a legal term for “compensation in money imposed by law for loss or injury,” while the noun “damage” without the “s”—whether notionally singular or plural—means “loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation” or “expense or cost.”

See how my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “damage” and “damages”:

damage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from dan damage, from Latin damnum
Date: 14th century

1 : loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation
2 plural   : compensation in money imposed by law for loss or injury
3 : EXPENSE, COST  <“What’s the damage?” he asked the waiter>

And for good measure, here’s its entry for the legal term “punitive damages”:

punitive damages
Function: noun plural
Date: 1865

 : damages awarded in excess of compensation to the plaintiff to punish a defendant for a serious wrong

This use of the plural “damages” is the precise sense in this citation of a Supreme Court decision by the Court of Appeals (269 SCRA 283) (underlining mine):

“The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the bus driver was based on reasonable doubt, which means that the civil case for damages was not barred since the cause of action of the heirs was based on quasi delict. Even if damages are sought on the basis of crime and not quasi delict, the acquittal of the bus driver will not bar recovery of damages because the acquittal was based not on a finding that he was not guilty but only on reasonable doubt.”

 
Thanks for the feedback, Cecil! And to all journalists and writers, please take note and make use of the nouns “damage” and “damages” correctly each time!