Law of Torts: Where's the fun in proving mere breach of duty?

Main problem with Law of Torts is that we focus too much on the "breach of duty" part and forget the "actual damage" part. It's like my papa always says, "Just proving that someone breached a duty is like saying 'yes, I made a mistake' in a court. It's the compensation part that matters, not the 'I'm sorry' part."

I mean, take the Donoghue v Stevenson case. We all learn about it, but have you stopped to think about whether the ginger beer really caused harm to May Donoghue? Did the stress of finding a dead snail make her health worse? It's all theoretical. In reality, the damages are what really matter. How much will it cost to put May Donoghue back to her normal life? That's what we should be focusing on. Push back.