ARTICLE I
TOPIC DAMNUM SINE INJURIA CASE COMMENTS
-By Anshita Gupta
Introduction:
(i) 1. The word Damnum is a Latin word which means damage.
(ii) 2. The word Sine is also a Latin word meaning without.
3. And the word Injuria which is also a Latin word means injury of the lawful personal privileges.
Thus, the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria means damage without any injury that is any damage which is caused apart from the harm as well as prejudice or in simple terms it means damage done without the violation of legal rights.
In other words, the legal maxim comprises;
Anything that has to do with significant harm, loss, or damage to ones finances, health, etc. is considered Damnum. The plaintiffs violation of a legally granted right is referred to as Injuria. And Sine denotes absence.
This maxims general tenet is that an exercise of ones common or ordinary rights within reasonable bounds and without violating the legal rights of others does not give rise to a tort action in that other persons favor. [3]
Damages can take many different forms, including any significant injury or loss incurred in relation to finances, comfort, health, etc.
- This means that even if someone sustains damage of any kind, if there is no interference with their legal rights, their rights cannot be upheld in court and they cannot be entitling to compensation.
- The law of torts is a collection of all the circumstances in which court gives a remedy by way of damages, for legally unjustified harm or injury done by one to another person.
- There are three elements which need to be proved before constituting a tort:
(i) There must be an act or omission on the part of the defendant.
(ii) The act or omission should be in violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
(iii) This kind of wrongdoing by the defendant results in a situation where a legal remedy is available.
4. To ensure that legal actions are based on actual violations of legal rights rather than just annoyances or monetary losses, the principle of Damnum Sine Injuria is crucial in preventing petty or frivolous lawsuits. It highlights how crucial legality is and how unlawful conduct or violations of legal rights are required to bolster a successful tort claim.
5. Itbasicallydescribescircumstancesinwhichanindividualororganization experienceinjuryorloss,buttheirlegalrightshavenotbeenviolated.
Alegitimatelegalclaimtypicallyrequiresproofofbothdamage(damnum) andtheviolationofalegalright(injuria).
6. Damnum Sine Injuria in tort is crucial to maintain the fairness and integrity of the legal system because it makes a distinction between serious legal wrongs and insignificant collateral damages.
Is Damnum Sine Injuria a Tort?
In the context of tort law, damnum sine injuria refers to a legal maxim or notion rather than an actual tort.
A broad variety of civil wrongs that cause harm or injury to people their property is covered by tort law.
Damages are usually given in tort law situations where a legal right has been infringed. On the other hand, the doctrine of Damnum sine Injuria takes effect and no legal remedies are available in situations where no legal right has been violated. Essentially, any harm that results from an activity that is taken legally, without carelessness, and in the exercise of a legal right is regarded as harm without legal injury. [1]
Example:
1. For instance, suppose A, a store owner, sells stationery supplies to elementary school pupils for three years. B then builds a second stationery store adjacent to A's and offers his products at a cheaper cost than A's. As a result, A cannot sue B because B did not breach any of A's legal rights by operating a store next to A. As a result, even though A's firm experienced a sufficient financial loss, he is unable to sue B for starting a second stationary store. Thus, we might conclude that A suffered from Damnum Sine Injuria. [2]
2. For instance, the Bradford corporation sued the defendant in Mayor Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895), arguing that the defendant's land had been used to dig a well, which had decreased the corporation's well's water supply and caused them to suffer financial losses as a result of the insufficient water for the people under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court used the doctrine of Damnum sine Injuria and determined that the defendant was not culpable since they had not infringed upon the plaintiff's legal rights. [2]
As seen in the above examples, though there was damage but no legal rights were infringed. So, the defendants in both the cases were not help liable.
Case Study: Gloucester Grammar School
In Gloucester Grammar Schools case (1410) the defendant was a teacher who was teaching in Gloucester Grammar School, due to some disputes he left the school and opened his own school and reduced the fees from 40 pence, which was charged in Gloucester Grammar School to 12 pence. As a result, the students started leaving the Gloucester Grammar School and joined the defendants school due to the lower fees. This resulted in a loss for the Gloucester Grammar School.
Issue raised in this case:
- Can defendant be held liable for the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff, just because he had fixed a rival school and damaged the right of plaintiff?
- Did this case cover the essentials of Damnum Sine Injuria? And if yes then the defendant couldnt be held liable? [4]
Judgement:
It was held by the court that no suit could lie. It was also held by the court of law that defendant couldnt be held liable. The court stated that:
(i) Compensation is no ground of action even though the monetary loss is caused, but if no legal right is violated.
(ii) It also further stated that, the defendant had lawfully set up his own school and he nowhere violated any legal right to plaintiff.
(iii) It was believed by the court that, students liked the teaching style of defendant, hence it was at the discretion of the students to study in whichever school they want to.
(iv) Appellant has no right to stop the defendant to run a business as a compensation to his school.
Case Analysis:
Law of Torts is understood to be an instrument to form people adhere to conduct of reasonable behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one another.
And the same kept in mind while giving the judgement of the case at the top of the decision of the law of court.
The case above discussed is related to an act which caused damage but no legal right is infringed or compromised.
Case: Chasemore vs Richard (1859)
In this case the plaintiff was running a mill on his own land, and for the same purpose he was using stream water for a long time. The well which was dug in his own land did cut the supply of underground water supple.
The quantity of water in the stream was reduced due to this reason the mill was closed. The plaintiff sued deft for the damage caused. For this case, the court had taken the precedent from Gloucester Grammar School and stated that this is a case of Damnum Sine Injuria.
Since there is no legal injury, the court held that plaintiff ask for any compensation. The decision taken in the case Gloucester Grammar School, was also applied to this case.
Conclusion:
A mans hurt from another persons activity does not automatically give rise to a cause of action; if the other person is acting lawfully, the injured party will not have a legal claim notwithstanding the intentional nature of the injury, provided that the other person is acting in accordance with their legal rights.
However, in situations of Damnum sine Injuria, no legal injury is recognized because no legal rights have been infringed upon, even though there may be actual harm or loss. This principle highlights the fact that not all wrongs have a legal remedy, underscoring the significance of differentiating between moral and legal wrongs. It is a well-known legal principle that moral wrongs cannot be made right until a legal right has been infringed. The plaintiff will not be awarded damages by the court until a legal right has been violated, even in cases where the defendant's acts were deliberate. When there is Damnum sine Injuria, a plaintiff may not be able to properly pursue damages or other legal remedies even when their rights have not been infringed.[5]
Citation:
1. Bhattacharjee, Soubhratra. Damnum Sine Injuria/ Injuria Sine Damnum. Legal Service India, March 03, 2021.
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5031-damnum-sine-injuria-injuria-sine-damnum.html
2. iPleaders Blog. Damnum Injuria. iPleaders, February 21, 2020.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/
3. Law Bhoomi. Damnum Sine Injuria. Law Bhoomi, October 10, 2023.
https://lawbhoomi.com/damnum-sine-injuria/
4. Nemani, Naga Snigdha. Damnum Sine Injuria Case Comment. Legal Service India, February 28, 2021.
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4682-damnum-sine-injuria-case-comment.html
5. Smith, John. Tort Law Principles. The Law Studies, January 1, 2023.
https://www.thelawstudies.org/2023/01/tort-law-principles.html
