DAMNUM SINE INJURIA? ELABORATE SOME OF THE DECIDED CASES ON THE MAXIM, DAMNUM SINE INJURIA? – Maxims for laws of the case: – In general, this maxim suggests that the damage cannot be done without injury. Damnum means damage to money, comfort and health, injuries mean violation of law and sine means without. Therefore, this means injury induced by non-violation of laws and no harm infringed by legal rights can be applied under the law of tort.
Where no infraction (violation) of any legal right has been committed. The mere reality of damage or loss does not make such action or omission possible even though the loss is considerable or irreparable. No cause of action is in itself the simple fact that a man is damaged by another act. If the act is deliberate, even if the damage is intentional, the injured party will have no legal claim, provided that the other party exercises a legal right. This means that loss or detriment is not the basis for action. The maximum implies so Except in the event of species that are misunderstood by legislation.
The following classifies the main situations where the damage is only
“damnum sine injuria”… SALMOND
- A person who merely exercises his or her own rights, as is the case of lasses imposed by a trade competition on individual traders; or –
- A person in the case of the defendant exercising his/her rights of ownership; or
- Where damage is caused by a man acting in excess of what is required to prevent further damage;
- The harm complained about may be too indefinite or too trivial to provide evidence to be recognized effectively. Therefore, with no action, it appears that damage will be recovered for just physical harm without any accompaniment. However, caused by the deliberate act or by the defendant’s negligence.
- Likewise, damages may be of a legal nature. No right to pecuniary compensation could be granted to the injured party but provided for. Certain other remedies, such as criminal prosecution, if applicable. This is the case, for example: Damage suffered by an individual common with the public due to the existence of a public nuisance.
IN THE MAIN CASE, GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL (1410)
The plaintiff suffered a cost loss because the respondent established a neighbouring rival school. It was decided that no action would be taken because there was no violation of any legal rights (LRP) of the plaintiff.
IN ACTION VS. REUTER’S TELEGRAPH COMPANY CASE
The defendant carrying on mining operations in his own land drained away from the percolating water from the land of the plaintiff and thus dried up the plaintiff’s well. No action has been held; it can be digged and applied to a person who owns the surface. Everything that can be found there for his own sake at his own discretion and when the water is collected from underground springs in the neighbour’s wall in the exercise of that right. This discomfort to her neighbour fits within the concept of terrible abseque injuries that cannot be the basis for action.
VISHNU DUTT SHARMA VS. BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL (BHS) AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IE), U.P. India.
In this case, a student missed a year of school because he was detained for failing to attend. However, it was discovered that the college did not keep an attendance record. The college violated a U.P board regulation. Decided that the compensation claim for one year’s loss cannot be maintained. It was a case of property damage without legal injury.
ELABORATE SOME OF THE DECIDED CASES ON THE MAXIM, INJURIA SINE DAMNUM.
INJURIA SINE DAMNUM denotes infringement of the law without prejudice. A violation of legal rights if a person is held liable for prosecution, whether or not that person causes actual damage or loss to the plaintiff.
Injuria refers to an infringement of the legally protected interest (i.e., right). SINE is an abbreviation for “without” or “absent.” It means the same as ‘obseque.’ And the term ‘DAMNUM’ refers to actual physical loss, whether in terms of health, comfort, money, or service.
The leading case of the maxim is ASHBY VS. WHITE
Respondent, a prominent official in a congressional election, falsely denied Applicant’s vote. Though the applicant does not suffer from this rejection because of the candidate he wanted to vote for won despite that. Holt, C.J. says “Every injury results in damage even if doesn’t cost the party one farthing”. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay damages to the plaintiff.
IN THE CASE OF BHIKHI OJHA VS. HARAKH KANDU
The facts were that the Maharaja of Dumraon and his predecessors have had a monopoly on the weight since time immemorial. The goods and products are sold in a bazaar which helps their land and claims all the balance charges on those transactions that have taken place. There, instead of collecting rents from merchants for land use. Maharajah gave the plaintiff the exclusive right to weigh and collect weighing fees in the bazaar.
It is alleged that the plaintiff brought an action for damages for unlawful interference with the right to weigh. And the collection obstruction is maintainable. But the proof of this real damage is essential. Straight, j., Comments: “It is clear that the Applicant is possessive. This right and right were violated by the defendants causing pecuniary loss (damages). And the damage caused by the actions of these defendants, in my opinion, you have the right to continue this case and possibly recover the damages that the plaintiff may have suffered”.
In the event of a breach of the law, the one whose right has been infringed is free to launch a lawsuit in accordance with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Differences in between damnum sine injuria and Injuria sine damnum.
NATURE: In Damnum sine injuries, no legal rights have been violated, but in Injuria sine damnum, the legal rights have been violated
DAMAGES: Damnum sine injuria is undamaged while injuria sine damnum is damageable.
RIGHTS: “Damnum sine injuria” is deals with the violation of moral rights while Injuria sine damnum is concerned with the violation of moral rights. “Damnum sine injuria” is related to moral rights infringement and Injuria sine Damum is related to legal rights infringement.
Conclusion Damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damnum:
The conclusion of the two maxims is that one is a moral error that the law does not remedy, despite causing great damage or damage to the plaintiff, and the other is the law that the law is liable for. It’s a mistake. In the event of private infringement, we provide legal remedies in certain cases without actual loss or damage.