Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
Author : V. Krishna Laasya
Introduction
Law of every country is dynamic and imposes a duty on every citizen to abide by the legal rights vested in them and the person, who has committed a breach of the same, is considered to have done a wrongful act.
A tort is a conduct of breach of duty that is not lawful. It is essentially considered a civil wrong which is neither exclusively a breach of contract nor a breach of trust[1]. It is that aspect of civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for damages that cannot be ascertained as a whole, and must be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case[2].
This article seeks to ascertain the concept of the maxims which can be interfered with if there is a need to protect wider interest (Qualified Rights). These maxims have no presumption of damages, whatsoever and are actionable only when there is proof of damages.
Thus, to constitute a tort, following conditions must be fulfilled:
- Act or an omission must have been made on the defendant’s part.
- The act or omission made must have resulted in lawful damage, that is there must have been a violation of lawful and legal right present and vested in the plaintiff.
Damnum Sine Injuria
Damnum Sine Injuria is constituted when the damage that is caused is present without causing any disturbance in the legal right vested with the plaintiff. This generally takes place when the exercise of one’s legal right causes an effective and a consequential harm to the other.
An injury caused by another’s act does not give cause of action, if the act has been done willfully. The person cannot claim under law and the other party can keep exercising the legal right. There is no remedy whatsoever for infringement of any moral wrong committed and intention is not a relevant criterion to be cited.
In Gloucester Grammar School[3] case, a schoolmaster (the defendant) set up a rival school next to the plaintiff’s, because of which the plaintiff had to reduce the school fees to withstand the competition. The plaintiff filed a case, where it was held that the plaintiff did not suffer from a legal infringement and hence there was no remedy that can be gained lawfully by the plaintiff for the act committed by the Defendant.
In Mogul Steamship Co v. McGregor Gow and Co[4] , majority of steamship companies teamed up and drove off the plaintiff from carrying out a tea trade with less freight. Plaintiff was said to not have a cause of action as the defendants acted according to conformation with the provisions of law and acted collectively to extend and protect the trade.
In Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma[5], defendants tried to stop the flow of water from entering their field and drug a trench for that purpose. The fifth defendant also independently put bunds on her land to prevent flow of water. As a consequence, the plaintiff’s land got flooded with the rainwater that entered her field. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that there was no legal wrong on part of the defendants to have dug a trench on their fields.This was considered a clear case of Damnum Sine Injuria and the defendants were held not liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff.
Thus, it must be noted that when one protects one’s property by preventing flood water from entering the fields, it is a case of Damnum Sine Injuria, however if the flood water has already entered the field, he is not permitted to transfer it to the neighboring land.
Scenarios of Damnum Sine Injuria include when there are any statements made defamatorily, damage caused to lesser individuals for the sake of protection of wider public interest etc.
Injuria Sine Damnum
To constitute Injuria Sine Damnum, the legal right of the plaintiff must have been violated without any damage, loss or harm caused. Injuria Sine Damnum covers those cases which are actionable per se (actionable without evidence of any damage caused or loss occurred).
There is no need to prove before any Court of Law that the plaintiff has undergone or suffered any loss as a result of the act committed.
Ashby v. White[6] is a landmark case in this regard. The plaintiff, a qualified voter’s vote was wrongfully refused to be taken into regard by the returning officer, the defendant. Though there was no lawful damage incurred by the plaintiff as the person he wanted to vote for won the election, the defendant was held liable. It was quoted as the plaintiff has the right of necessity to maintain his vested right and also is provided with a remedy is he is not allowed to enjoy the exercise of his right. The principle of reciprocity of want and right was introduced and analysed here.
Every injury caused has imposition of damage, irrespective of whether it costs the party or not. The damage need not always be pecuniary; it is enough if the person is hindered of the right.
The plaintiff has succeeded in the action brought against the defendant even if there was no monetary loss incurred and this highlights the importance of a legal right vested in any person, irrespective of whether the damages can be measured in terms of money or money’s worth.
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[7], the petitioner who is a Member of Legislative Assembly, Jammu and Kashmir was wrongfully and unlawfully detained by the police authorities. He was also not produced before the Magistrate within the period stipulated in Indian Law. The petitioner urged that the constitutional right to attend assemble was violated and by way of relief, Rs. 50,000 was awarded to him as damages.
It must be noted here that the loss caused to the plaintiff is not in question. It is the fact that the rights that every citizen has under the Constitution that is relevant. Nominal damages are generally awarded if the plaintiff has suffered no harm, but the act committed against him is wrong.
Conclusion
On one side is a moral wrong that is provided no shade and remedy under law. On the other side is a legal wrong that is protected under law even if there is no actual monetary damage incurred.
Thus, it must be taken into account that the action and remedy granted by the Court of law must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of the case and not merely on the ground that the injury or act falls within the two maxims.
[1] Tort Commission- Defined under S. 2(m) of the Limitation Act of 1963.
[2] Tort, Nature of Branch Law, as defined by Salmond.
[3] Gloucester Grammar School (1410) YB Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47.
[4] Mogul Steamship Co v. McGregor Gow and Co (1892) AC 25
[5] Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103, Lagan Navigation Co v. Lamberg Bleaching Dyeing and Finishing Co (1972) AC 226
[6] Ashby v. White 2 Lord Raym, 938; (1703) 1 Sm. LC 13th Edn 253
[7] Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1986 SC 494
