Injuria sine damno and Damnum sine injuria

Introduction

A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition. Legal maxims are Latin phrases that express broad and fundamental legal principles, such as fiat justitia ruat caelum (“let justice be done though the heavens fall”), Audi Altarem Partem (“let the other side be heard as well”), and more. Legal maxims provide guidance to judges when a case has no governing law but the courts still need to rule on the case. However, a court cannot simply use a legal maxim to solve a problem – it needs to find other rulings and statutes that support the maxim’s use in that particular situation.

This definition from “A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage” reads as follows: “Legal maxims are statements or rules that express some rule, principle, or presumption embodied in the law, and are used both as a rule of law and as an instrument for interpreting the law. The essential characteristic of a legal maxim is that it describes a legal principle so completely that its application to any concrete situation is direct and almost automatic.” Now, this article today surrounds two important legal maxims playing one of the vital essentials for tortious liability.

According to Salmond, A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common-law action for unliquidated damages and which is to exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. When a person does a wrong, the first step to look is whether the wrong done is a civil wrong or a criminal wrong. if a civil wrong, the type of civil wrong needs to be looked into for it to be regarded as a tort. Thus we can say that tort is i) a civil rog, ii) this civil wrong is other than a breach of contract or a breach of trust, and iii) this wrong is addressed by monetary compensation or damages.

Injuria in torts

It should be kept in mind that a tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs cannot be constituted as a tort. for a civil wrong to be a tort, there are two conditions:

1. There must e some kind of an act or omission done by the defendant
2. This act or omission done should give rise to a legal damage (injuria) i.e the iolation of some legl right of the plaintiff.

For a tortious wrong to take place, some form of action is necessary to give rise to damages which can be later claimed. The plaintiff while building up his/her case has to prove the existence of a breach of a legal duty or a legal right for claiming such damage or injuria.

Injuria in literal parlance means an injury or damage. it is the infringement of a right conferred upon an individual to enjoy that right or the violation of the same. a trivial involvement or interference with the plaintiff’s right can also give rise to the injury. Damnum, on the other hand, means the harm caused to the plaintiff with respect to the injury sustained. It can be in terms of money, health, reputation, etc. Legal damage can be thus bifurcated into two parts: i) Injuria Sine Damno and ii) Damnum Sine Injuria. which have been discussed further in detail.

1. Injuria sine damno

An act done by the defendant + Injury incurred upon the plaintiff – loss, and harm suffered by the plaintiff = Injuria Sine Damno

Thus, Injuria sine damno means injury without causing any harm loss, or damage to the plaintiff. under this maxim, the plaintiff does not need to be under any sort of harm or Damno in order to seek remedy. The only condition to prove here is the existence of legal damage. for instance, A has trespassed into B’s land. Here this maxim will apply because maybe A has not caused any actual or potential physical harm or damage to B but there is a violation of the legal right of B to enjoy his property.

For this maxim, there is no presence of a physical loss but only of the violation of the legal right. Therefore the compensation to the damages received is the sole result of some kind of a loss. The damages are solely for the purpose of compensating the victim solely based on the injuria and not the damno.

Ashley vs White is the leading case that rightfully explains the maxim. The plaintiff was a qualified voter at one parliamentary election. He had all that a voter required but the defendant who was a returning officer refused to take the plaintiff’s vote. If we go by the facts of the case, there was no loss suffered as such by the refusal of the candidate to whom A would have given the vote had won the election. the defendant was however liable because the injury was done to the legal right of the plaintiff. His legal right to vote was violated and in turn, the defendant was made liable for damages.

In the case of Injuria sine Damno, the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not very relevant for the purpose of the cause of action. It is only relevant as regards the measures of damages. The damages claimed can be as nominal as say five rupees. In the case of Bhim Singh, the Court granted the plaintiff exemplary damages when a member of the parliament was wrongfully detained by the police preventing him from exercising his right of attending the Assembly session.

In the trespass case of Sain Das vs Ujagar Singh, this legal maxim was again observed. The Court held that nominal damages are usually awarded and the principle of injuria sine damno is used on an immovable property when there has been an unjustifiable intrusion on the property in possession of another.

Thus, if a person feels that his legal right has been infringed by another’s act or omission, without any injury taking place, the person who has been threatened can bring suit under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

Damnum SIne Injuria: Concept with case laws

Act of the Defendant+ Malice caused by the defendant+ Loss incurred by the plaintiff- legal injury of the plaintiff= Damnum Sine Injuria

The literal meaning of this maxim is the damnum i.e. the damage incurred by the plaintiff in terms of monetary damage, physical damage without any infringement made in the legal right of the plaintiff. It is one of the most important and popular maxims in the law of tort. This maxim explains that damages are not actionable if there is no tort. According to Sir Frederick Pollock, “Every legal injury involves damage, but the damage is not actionable unless it is accompanied by a legal wrong”.

According to Justice Vaughan Williams, Damnum Sine Injuria means damage without legal injury or we can also say damage which may be suffered by one person without any breach of duty on the part of anyone else. Damnum sine injuria literally means loss without injury. Loss of money, damage to property, etc. as such is not actionable even if it amounts to infringement of a legal right. To put it in another way, in order to maintain an action, it is necessary to show that not only has the plaintiff suffered a loss but he has also suffered an injury by violation of some right, and there was conscious wrongdoing by the defendant or something so close to it with the same force and effect as in express wrongful act.

The mere fact that a man feels injured by the act or omission of another person cannot give rise to a cause of action. This is not possible to prove even when the injury is intentional in nature as long as the opposite party is exercising a legal right. (Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills)

The leading case of Gloucester Grammar school shall e able to explain this maxim properly. Here the defendant was a school headmaster and he had set up a rival school just opposite of the plaintiff’s school. there was a competition between the two schools due to which the plaintiff had to reduce the school fees in order to attract more students. The Court held that the plaintiff could not ask for damages just because mere injury without violation f a leal right was not sufficient to raise the question of damages.

Dickson vs. Reuter’s Telegram C. is another example to show the usage of the legal maxim. The defendant which is the telegram company, in this case, had delivered a telegram in negligence to someone else which is the plaintiff in this case. This telegram contained an order of barley from Valparaiso to England. Thinking the telegram to be theirs, the plaintiff had shipped them and suffered a huge number of losses. They in return sued the telegram company. The Court held that since there was no duty owed to the recipient, they were not held liable to pay damages.

In the case of Bradford Corporation vs. Pickles, the House of Lords held that if the plaintiff has suffered maliciously, no cause of action can arise of the same unless the plaintiff can prove that he has suffered from injuria. Thus this shows that a legal act conducted and motivated by malice will not make the defendant liable. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that he has been wronged and that he has suffered an injury that is the direct connection to the illegal act of the defendant himself.

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum sine injuria

1. Injuria Sine Damno occurs when a legal right of a person is violated but no actual damage or loss has been caused. Injuria means injury, wrong and damnum means damage. Damnum Sine injuria occurs when an individual suffers some definite loss or harm (damnum) but there is no legal remedy because his/her legal rights were not violated.
2. In the case of Injuria Sine Danum, there a cause of action arising due to the violation of the legal right that the plaintiff has whereas on the other hand, in Damnum Sine Injuria, there i no cause of action possible because it is the loses suffered without any infringement in the plaintiff’s legal right.
3. In case of Injuria Sine Damno, the compensation in the form of damages is awarded by the Cout whereas in case of Damnum sine INjuria, no Compensation is awarded by the Court.
4. An Act uder this maxim is actionable as there was an injury to legal right of the plaintiff,where as in case of damnum Sine Injuria, Damage without injury cannot be termed as actionable.
5. Injuria Sine Damno is more of a legal wrong caused ot the plaintiff whereas Damnum Sine Injuria is a moral wrong or a social wrong for whch nocause of action arises and in turn no damages are given.

conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that out of these two legal maxims one is a moral wrong for which the laws provide no remedy. The main aim of damnum sine injuria is based on the maxim, “No right without remedy”. It is a very important and basic concept in the law of torts. The main aim of this principle or maxim is to prevent unnecessary litigation bypassing such losses which are not legally wrong under the writ of tort whereas the main aim of the Injuria sine damnum is to restrain people against doing unlawful acts. If a person commits a tortious act without the infliction of any damage it would be impossible for an aggrieved party to bring an action for damages.

FAQs