to respond to his requests for legal materials and denials of his requests for cases even for mere typographical errors, despite his diligence in attempting to locate case law from the scarce resources provided. As this Court held in a much earlier case alleging denial of access to legal materials at DCC, although such damages are difficult to calculate, we must “be guided by conscience, a sense of fairness, and the well established rule that the difficulties inherent in translating human experience into economic worth must not preclude compensation for a demonstrated loss.” Johnson v. Anderson, 420 F.Supp. 845, 852 (D.Del.1976). In Johnson, this Court awarded the plaintiffs $300.00 each as compensatory damages. See id.; see also Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d 1266, 1269-70 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Using Johnson as our guide, and considering
holding that a court may conduct a fair use analysis as a matter of law where the facts are presumed or admitted holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential holding that claimants may be entitled to damages for loss of use and enjoyment in addition to returned rents and profits holding inmate was entitled to presumed damages to compensate for loss of such privileges as use of the law library holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss