In what scenario does a plaintiff not sustain damage in a negligence claim?

In negligence claims, a fundamental aspect that must be established is that the plaintiff must have sustained actual damage or harm as a result of the defendant's breach of duty. The correct answer highlights that if a plaintiff did not suffer any actual harm, there can be no claim for negligence because damages are an essential element of the tort.

If there is no actual harm—be it physical injury, emotional distress, or property damage—the court cannot grant any compensation, as the core principle of tort law is to address and remedy harm caused by wrongful acts. Therefore, the absence of actual harm means that the claim cannot proceed, as it fails to meet a critical requirement for establishing negligence.

Other scenarios, such as not seeking medical help or being unable to prove a random occurrence, do not inherently negate the presence of damage if harm was suffered; they may impact the evaluation of the claim but do not eliminate actual damage itself. Similarly, receiving full compensation assumes that damage was proven initially, which is not applicable if no harm was suffered.