Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum in Law of Torts

Introduction

The word tort has been derived from the Latin word “tortum”, which means ‘to twist’. In general, tort means conduct which is not straight or lawful, i.e., it is twisted or unlawful.

According to Dr. Winfield, “The liability in tort arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law; such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible, by an action for unliquidated damages.”

According to Salmond, “Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation.”

According to Sec. 2(m) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, “Tort means a civil wrong which is exclusively not a breach of contract or breach of trust.”

Essential Elements Of Tort

There are three essential elements. They are:

1. There must be an act or omission, on the part of the defendant.
2. That act or omission should be in violation of the plaintiff’s legal right.
3. The wrongful act or omission done by the defendant, give rise to a legal remedy.

The significance of legal damage can be understood by following two maxims:

1. Damnum Sine Injuria
2. Injuria Sine Damnum

Damnum Sine Injuria

It is derived from the Latin word, which means, “damage without injury”, i.e., damage without infringement of any legal right.

Here, no action lies against the defendant, as there’s no infringement of any legal right.

Reason: This maxim is based on a general principle that if one exercises his common rights, within reasonable limits. It is without infringing other’s legal rights, can’t be held liable under tort.

It is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for moral wrongs; unless there is an infringement of one’s legal right. Even if the act or omission done intentionally by the defendant; still no liability will be imposed on him/her by the Court. No damages will be granted to the plaintiff, as it (the act or omission) was morally wrong.

Case Laws

Gloucester Grammar School Case[1], in this case, the defendant was a teacher in the plaintiff’s school. Because of some dispute, he left the plaintiff’s school and started a rivalry school, in front of the defendant’s. Being popular in school, the student’s start to switch to his school, while leaving the plaintiff’s school. Plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of damages. It was held that the defendant was not liable. Though monetary loss was suffer by the plaintiff, but liability can’t be impose on the defendant because he set up the school lawfully, without infringing the plaintiff’s legal right.

Acton v. Bundell[2], in this case, the defendant was the landowner, who carried out mining activities in his land. He used to extract water for mining operations from the plaintiff’s land, as the water used to come from his land, by subterraneous course to the well situated in the defendant’s land. Once, while exercising the mining operations, it resulted in the draining of water from the plaintiff’s land. It was held that the defendant was not liable, as there was no infringement of the plaintiff’s legal right.

Chasemore v. Richards[3], in this case, the plaintiff was the mill owner and for this purpose, he was using the water of the stream, for a long time. The defendant dug an extensive well in his land, for the benefit of inhabitants. The act of the defendant resulted in, cutting off of the underground water supply of stream because percolation of the water resulted in the gathering of the water in the defendant’s well. Due to this, the plaintiff suffered monetary loss. Here, the defendant was not held liable, because he exercise his right lawfully, without violating the plaintiff’s right.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination[4], in this case, because of negligence on the part of school authorities, in maintaining the attendance register, the plaintiff was detained from giving the examination. The Court ruled that the plaintiff can’t claim compensation, as misconstruction of regulations doesn’t amount to a tort.

Injuria Sine Damnum

• It is derived from the Latin word, which means, “injury without damage”, i.e., infringement of an absolute personal right, without any actual damage or loss.
• Whenever any legal right gets infringe, the person on whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action, for recovery of damages.

Reason: Every person has an absolute right on his property, person, liberty, and infringement of such right is actionable per se.

The law even gives liberty to those persons who merely have a threat of infringement of a legal right, without completion of an injury. The person under threat can bring suit under provisions of the Specific Relief Act under Declaration and Injunction.

Case Laws

Ashby v. White[5], in this case, the plaintiff was the qualified voter who was refused by the returning officer, to cast a vote. Though, no damage was suffered by the plaintiff, since the candidate in whose favor he want to vote, had won the election. Here, the defendant was held liable, as he infring on the plaintiff’s fundamental rights.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir[6], the plaintiff was the MLA of Jammu & Kashmir, who was wrongfully detained by the police, when he was on the way to attend a session of Legislative Assembly. He was wrongfully arrested and was not even present before the Court. It was held that the defendant was liable, as they violate the defendant’s fundamental right to attend the Assembly’s session and compensation of Rs. 50,000 was given to the plaintiff.

Marzetti v. Williams[7], in this case, the plaintiff was holding an account in the defendant’s bank. When he went to withdrew money from self-cheque, he was refuse by the defendant, despite having adequate balance in the bank account. Here, the defendant was held liable by the Court, and compensation was award to the plaintiff, for not being able to withdraw money.

Conclusion

Injuria Sine Damno is the legal injury so caused to the plaintiff without any damage to physical injury, while in the case of Damnum Sine Injuria it refers to the damages suffer physically by the plaintiff but no damage is being cause to the legal rights as there is no violation of it.  Another point of difference is that the actionable in law, so Injuria Sine Damno is actionable per se as there is a violation of legal right, while the other is not as there is no violation of any legal right is there.

---

References:

[1] (1410) YB 11 Hen IV

[2] (1843) 12 M & W 324

[3] (1859) 7 HLC 349

[4] AIR 1981 All 46

[5] (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938

[6] AIR 1986 SCC 494

[7] (1830) 1 B & Ad 415