Damnum Sine Injuria

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

This Story also Contains

1. What is Tort?
2. Essentials of Tort
3. Injuria Sine Damno
4. Damnum Sine Injuria
5. Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
6. Case Laws on Damnum Sine Injuria
7. In the case of Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma
8. Conclusion

What is Tort?

• The word "tort" comes from the Latin word "tortum," which means to twist. It describes a behaviour that is twisted, bent, or unlawful rather than straight or legal. The notion bears resemblance to the English term "wrong." Tort law covers various torts, or wrongs, where the wrongdoer breaches another person's legal rights. The person who does this is seen as having committed a wrongful act. The legal system mandates that members of society honour their legal rights.
• A violation of a contract occurs when one of the parties involved in the agreement does not meet their responsibilities as outlined in the agreement, similar to how a crime is an illegal act that results from failing to meet a legal duty recognized by criminal law. Similar to this, a tort is defined under tort law as the inability to fulfil a duty. Libel, for instance, is a tort that arises from a failure to uphold an obligation not to harm the reputation of another person. While the tort of fraud is the failure to uphold a duty not to deceive someone, the tort of trespass to land arises when one disregards a duty not to trespass on another person's property.
• Hence, a tort can be described as a civil wrong that goes beyond a simple contract violation or a breach of trust, and which can be resolved through a lawsuit seeking uncertain damages.

1.A Tort is a civil wrong

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.

2. A tort is not the same as a simple contract or trust violation

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.

3.A tort is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages

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.

Essentials of Tort

To constitute a tort, it is essential that the following two conditions are satisfied:

1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant

2. The act or omission should result in legal damage i.e. violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff

1. Act or omission

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.

2. Legal damage

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.

Injuria Sine Damno

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.

Damnum Sine Injuria

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.

• It does not always follow that someone who is hurt by the behaviour of another person has the right to file a lawsuit. Even in cases when the act was deliberate, the damaged party cannot bring legal action against the defendant if they are acting in accordance with their legal rights.
• Damnum Sine Injuria is the legal doctrine that applies where there is no infringement of rights. The court guarantees that persons who have experienced harm or loss as a result of a violation of a legal right are entitled to compensation.
• Illustration - A operates a leather production facility adjacent to a market, and shortly after, B decides to establish his own leather production business. B then begins to produce and sell leather at a lower cost compared to what A offers..Because B is more competitive than A, A loses money. A cannot sue B, nevertheless, because B's establishment of his leather plant nearby did not infringe A's legal rights. Thus, in this case, A's leather business is having serious financial difficulties, yet he is unable to take B to court. Consequently, A may become a victim of Damnum Sine Injuria.

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.

Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum

Case Laws on Damnum Sine Injuria

In the case of Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma

• In this situation, four individuals attempted to divert the flow of water onto their property by excavating a trench and constructing a bund. Meanwhile, the fifth individual took matters into her own hands by erecting bunds on her property to block the water's flow. Rainwater eventually reached the plaintiff's property as a result of these five people's acts, causing damage. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction to stop future construction of trenches or bunds on the defendants' property, as well as damages in the amount of Rs. 300. They also requested an order compelling the defendants to dismantle the bunds and fill the trench. for the harm already suffered due to the water's movement onto their property.
• The Supreme Court determined that the proprietor of property adjacent to a river is entitled to erect a barrier on their property to safeguard it from flooding caused by the river's spillage, even though this results in the water from the spillage flowing onto the adjacent property and resulting in damages. In this instance, it was evident that the injured party suffered property damage without legal cause, rendering the defendants not responsible for the plaintiff's losses.
• The legislation allows individuals to safeguard their belongings from known threats by blocking the entry of floodwater onto their property, even if this action results in harm to nearby properties. The owner is not permitted by law to push floodwater onto neighbouring land, though, if it has already reached the property.

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.

Conclusion

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.