There's a phrase in tort law that goes, "damnum sine injuria." This proverb derives from the Latin terms damnum, which means harm, sine, which means without, and injuria, which means hurt. The term is therefore used to characterize harm that does not include the extra component of an unlawful infringement upon the plaintiff's legitimate entitlements.
CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs
CUET BA LLB 2025: Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests
MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions
Monthly Legal Current Affairs: August’24 | July’24 | June’24
Torts are categorized as civil offences. A civil offence differs from a criminal offence in that the plaintiff the party who feels wronged files a lawsuit against the defendant the person who committed the harm. In this instance, compensation is the primary remedy. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant for any harm or losses the defendant caused.
A tort is a type of civil offence that is not limited to any one particular type of civil offence. For example, if a behaviour is just a plain breach of contract or confidence, it wouldn't be classified as a tort. Therefore, it's only recognized as a violation of a contract if there's an agreement for the purchase of a radio set, but the buyer doesn't meet their obligations. If the issue belongs to the civil realm of civil offences, like a violation of contract or breach of confidence, the only method to ascertain if it's criminal or civil is by process of elimination. The act can be categorized as a tort if it's found to be more than just a simple breach of contract or any other civil offence.
Compensation is the primary solution for a civil wrong. After the damage is done, the victim can typically be made whole through monetary compensation. But once the damage is done, it's usually not possible to undo the results. For example, it is impossible to return to the previous state of affairs once someone's reputation has been harmed. The only thing to do in these kinds of cases is to figure out how much money is worth the harm that defamation has created. The victim then demands payment of this sum from the guilty party.
To constitute a tort, it is essential that the following two conditions are satisfied:
There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant
The act or omission should result in legal damage i.e. violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff
For someone to be held responsible for a civil wrong, they need to have committed an action that was not anticipated or neglected to perform an action that was expected. Either a deliberate harmful act or a failure to act, which is against the law, can result in liability. For instance, if a company that looks after a public park neglects to install adequate barriers to prevent children from reaching a toxic tree and a child picks and consumes the toxic tree's fruit, leading to their death, the company will be held accountable for this failure.
A plaintiff must prove they have suffered legal harm in order for their tort action to be successful. Basically, this entails proving that the plaintiff's legal rights or obligations were violated by a wrong action, either by an act or a failure to act. There is no basis for a tort law case in the absence of such a violation of a legal right. It is this idea that is expressed in the Latin proverb "Injuria Sine Damno." The term "injuria" describes any unapproved interference, regardless of size, with the plaintiff's legal rights or the infringement of a right that has been granted to the plaintiff. However, damnum denotes serious injury, loss, or damage related to wealth, comfort, health, etc. Since no legal right should be violated unattended, the plaintiff is nonetheless able to file a lawsuit even in cases where there is injuria or a breach of a legal right without concurrent harm to them.
The term "juria sine damno" describes a legal right that is violated without causing the victim of the violation any pain, loss, or damage. Torts fall into two types. The first category consists of torts that are inherently actionable, which means that one can pursue them without having to provide evidence of injury or loss. For instance, even in cases when there is no direct harm caused by a trespass, it is nevertheless regarded as an intrinsically actionable tort. Only if there is proof of loss or damage stemming from the defendant's activities may the second category of torts be prosecuted.
In the context of injuria sine damno, the first type of tort is being discussed. In these situations, it is not necessary to show that the person who has been wronged has suffered any harm as a direct result of the defendant's actions. For a successful claim, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has violated the plaintiff's legal rights. In other words, there is an injuria.
In the case of Ashby v. White
In this situation, the principle of injuria sine damno was clarified, and the plaintiff was successful in his lawsuit, even though the defendant's actions did not result in any harm. The plaintiff was an eligible voter in a parliamentary election, but the defendant, who was the returning officer, mistakenly denied the plaintiff's vote. However, no harm was incurred from this denial since the candidate the plaintiff supported won the election, even though it was decided that the defendant was responsible.
In addition to an unlawful interference with the plaintiff's legal rights, there must also be damage, according to the legal doctrine known as "Damnum sine injuria". For instance, causing significant harm to another person is not actionable unless the plaintiff's legal rights are violated.This usually happens when the plaintiff is harmed as a result of the defendant exercising their legal rights.
The Gloucester Grammar School Case
In this situation, the principle of "Damnum Sine Injuria" was clarified. Here, the accused, a teacher, established a competing school with the one belonging to the plaintiffs. Due to the rivalry, the plaintiffs were forced to lower their tuition from 40 per cent to 12 pencents per student per quarter. It was determined that the plaintiffs were without any legal recourse for the damages they incurred.
In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi chitra mandir
The claimants filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to stop the defendants from showing the movie titled "Jai Santoshi Maa". They argued that the movie offended their religious beliefs, especially regarding Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati, who were shown as envious and mocked in the film. The argument was made that the infringement of religious beliefs wasn't considered a valid legal grievance. Additionally, there's no legal basis for someone to impose their religious beliefs on others or to prevent others from engaging in lawful activities simply because those activities conflict with their own religious beliefs. Given that there wasn't a legal infringement, the petition for a court order was denied.
No. | Damnum Sine Injuria | Injuria Sine Damnum |
1 | It applies to the defendant's losses without going against their legal rights. | Without endangering the real injury, it is civil damage to the plaintiff. |
2 | It is the losses incurred without going against anyone's legal rights. | When a complainant files a lawsuit, there has been a violation of their legal rights. |
3 | In this instance, the court grants no recompense. | The court granted compensation in the Injuria Sine Damnum case. |
4 | It is primarily used when there is moral transgression. | In this instance, it mostly refers to legal mistakes |
5 | In this instance, the complainant experiences a loss but does not incur any legal harm. | The plaintiff in this instance sustains legal harm |
6 | Damages without harm are covered by damnum sine injuria. | When civil rights are violated, the doctrine of Injuria Sine Damnum is applied. |
In Jethu Singh v. State of Rajasthan
In this instance, the petitioner's store was near the gas station that the applicant was requesting permission to open. It was concluded that there would be no harm to the public interest from the petrol station's installation. The public would gain instead. The petitioner's right to conduct business remained unaffected.
The Rajasthan High Court decided that the petitioner's harm was not actionable legally because of the "damnum sine injuria" principle.
One can deduce that Damnum Sine Injuria deals with damages without bodily injury or damages in which no legal right has been violated, which are therefore in the plaintiff's possession. In cases involving Damnum sine injuria, there is no lawsuit when no legal right has been violated. This principle is designed to offer a solution to the plaintiff, suggesting that the person is not responsible for any actions taken within what is considered reasonable. Therefore, this principle is crucial for individuals who fail to stay within these reasonable bounds.
This principle comes from the Latin language, where Damnum signifies harm, Sine means without, and injuria denotes injury. Therefore, the term refers to harm that is not accompanied by an unauthorized violation of the plaintiff's legal rights.
Injuria Sine Damno refers to the infringement of a legal entitlement without resulting in injury, loss, or harm to the aggrieved party.
A tort is a civil offence that can be fixed through a lawsuit for damages that are not specified in advance and that are different from a simple violation or violation of trust.
The essentials to constitute a tort are Act or omission and legal damage.
The Gloucester Grammar School Case is the famous case that explains the maxim “Damnum Sine Injuria”.
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC
Apr 27, 2022 - 12:42 p.m. IST ---STATIC