Worked example: Damages Allocation in North Dakota
7 min read
Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team
Example inputs
Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.
Below is a worked example showing how DocketMath can allocate damages in a North Dakota case using jurisdiction-aware rules. This walkthrough focuses on how the calculator is configured and what the outputs mean, not on legal strategy.
Note: This example is for illustration of the workflow and calculations. A real case depends on the specific verdict, the claims pleaded, and the jury’s findings (including any findings relevant to fault and causation).
Scenario (North Dakota)
Assume a plaintiff brings a claim for personal injury arising from a motor-vehicle collision and also alleges medical expenses and property damage. The jury returns a verdict that includes both economic and non-economic categories, and the court allocates fault among parties.
For this example, we’ll use:
- Total verdict (before allocation): $400,000
- Fault allocation (comparative fault):
- Plaintiff fault: 20%
- Defendant fault: 80%
- Economic damages components:
- Medical expenses: $210,000
- Lost wages: $40,000
- Property damage: $25,000
- Non-economic damages components:
- Pain and suffering: $125,000
- Interest settings:
- We’ll treat interest as off for the core allocation run to keep the example focused on principal allocation logic.
Key inputs DocketMath needs for allocation
Use these values as the calculator inputs:
- Jurisdiction:
US-ND - Total verdict (principal):
400000 - Comparative fault / allocation percentage:
- Plaintiff fault:
0.20 - Defendant fault:
0.80
- Damages breakdown (economic and non-economic):
- Medical:
210000 - Lost wages:
40000 - Property damage:
25000 - Pain/suffering:
125000
- Interest: No (principal only)
- Caps / special statutory adjustments: None included in this example
Quick verification checklist (before running)
- Economic + non-economic equals total principal
- $210,000 + $40,000 + $25,000 + $125,000 = $400,000
- Defendant share uses 80% fault allocation
- No interest or special adjustments included in this run
If any of these don’t match your verdict sheet, DocketMath can still run, but the output will reflect the numbers you provided.
Example run
You can reproduce this allocation using DocketMath at /tools/damages-allocation (or directly via the calculator entrypoint).
Run the Damages Allocation calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.
DocketMath run configuration (US-ND)
In DocketMath, set:
- Jurisdiction:
US-ND - Principal verdict amount:
400,000 - Fault allocation:
- Plaintiff:
20% - Defendant:
80%
- Damages categories:
- Medical expenses:
210,000 - Lost wages:
40,000 - Property damage:
25,000 - Pain and suffering:
125,000
- Interest: Off (principal-only output)
What DocketMath calculates
DocketMath allocates damages by applying the defendant’s percentage share to each damages component (so the category breakdown remains consistent).
Step 1: Compute defendant-allocated damages
Defendant share = 80% of each category.
| Damages category | Verdict amount | Defendant share (80%) | Allocated to defendant-paid amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical expenses | $210,000 | $168,000 | $168,000 |
| Lost wages | $40,000 | $32,000 | $32,000 |
| Property damage | $25,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Pain and suffering | $125,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 |
| Total | $400,000 | $320,000 | $320,000 |
Step 2: Sanity check
- Total principal allocated = $168,000 + $32,000 + $20,000 + $100,000 = $320,000
- This equals 80% of $400,000 = $320,000
Example output interpretation
Your principal allocation output (principal only) should show:
- Total allocated damages to plaintiff (based on fault): $320,000
- Breakdown by category:
- Medical: $168,000
- Lost wages: $32,000
- Property: $20,000
- Pain/suffering: $100,000
- Plaintiff reduced by comparative fault:
- Plaintiff share (20%) = 0.20 × $400,000 = $80,000 (i.e., not included in the defendant-paid portion under this simplified allocation model)
Warning: Comparative fault reductions depend on how the factfinder allocates fault. If the verdict provides a different allocation structure (e.g., multiple defendants, separate allocations per claim, or apportionment by event), you’ll want DocketMath inputs to match the verdict language closely.
Where this helps in practice
This approach is useful when:
- Your jury verdict lists distinct line items (medical, wages, noneconomic).
- You want category-level numbers for pleadings, settlement discussions, or internal case summaries.
- You need a consistent “from verdict sheet to damages totals” workflow.
Sensitivity check
Even with the same total verdict, the outcome can shift substantially when fault percentages or category inputs change. Here are three sensitivity checks you can run in DocketMath to see how the allocated total reacts.
To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.
Sensitivity check A: Fault allocation moves by ±10 points
Keep the verdict categories unchanged ($400,000 total) and adjust fault shares.
- Case A1: Plaintiff fault 30% (defendant 70%)
- Allocated total = 0.70 × 400,000 = $280,000
- Case A2: Plaintiff fault 10% (defendant 90%)
- Allocated total = 0.90 × 400,000 = $360,000
Impact range:
- From $280,000 to $360,000 → $80,000 swing in allocated principal.
Sensitivity check B: Reclassifying a category amount (total principal unchanged)
Sometimes the verdict or amendments shift the internal breakdown while the total principal stays the same. Suppose:
- Pain and suffering decreases by $20,000 (from $125,000 → $105,000)
- Medical increases by $20,000 (from $210,000 → $230,000)
Total remains $400,000, and fault remains 80%.
Because the allocation is applied proportionally across the total principal for this model, the allocated total stays the same:
- Allocated total = 0.80 × $400,000 = $320,000
However, the category breakdown changes, which can matter for downstream items (like exhibit summaries or settlement allocations).
| Category | Original allocated (80%) | Reclassified allocated (80%) |
|---|---|---|
| Medical | $168,000 | $184,000 |
| Lost wages | $32,000 | $32,000 |
| Property | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Pain/suffering | $100,000 | $84,000 |
| Total | $320,000 | $320,000 |
Pitfall: If your settlement or damages demand references a specific category (for example, “medical specials”), a category reclassification can change the numbers even when the overall principal stays fixed.
Sensitivity check C: Adding interest later (how it affects the workflow)
This example intentionally turned interest off to isolate principal allocation. If you enable interest in DocketMath later, the principal allocation remains the foundation; interest typically adds on top (rather than replacing the category totals).
Practical workflow:
- Confirm your principal totals and fault-apportioned category amounts.
- Enable interest and verify that the interest calculation bases align with how your case computes it (start date, compounding assumptions, and any statutory constraints).
If the interest module expects specific date inputs, run a principal-only check first—then add dates once you have them.
Gentle note: This is a modeling workflow illustration, not legal advice, and interest rules can be nuanced depending on the specific claim and court’s instructions.