Maxim – DAMNUM SINE INJURIA/

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Name – Kamna Mehta
Roll No. 25
College Name – ABA College of Law
Damnum Sine Injuria

(Actual damage suffered without legal injury)

Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property or any physical loss that
occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act
was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without
infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no
violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no
violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring
an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some
infringement of a legal right.

In the case, Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410), the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up
a rival school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased
competition, the plaintiff had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the
plaintiff suffered loss, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant
could not be held liable.

Injuria Sine Damnum

(Legal injury suffered without actual damage)

The Injuria Sine Damage is just the reverse of Damnum Sine Injuria. Injuria Sine Damnum is
a legal maxim that means that the plaintiff suffered no physical injury or damage. He only
has to prove that he has suffered some legal damage. For example, if X roams around Y's
house without reasoning, there is a violation of Y's legal right, and thus this maxim applies.

In the case of Injuria Sine Damnum, the loss suffered is not physical, but due to a violation of
a legal right. As a result, the damages received by the aggrieved party are the result of some
kind of loss, and the amount for damages is determined solely to compensate the victim.
In the case of Ashby vs. White, the defendant, a returning officer at a voting booth,
wrongfully and maliciously refused to register a duly tendered vote for the plaintiff, who was
a qualified voter. The candidate for whom the vote was sought to be tendered was, however
elected and no actual loss was suffered by the rejection of the plaintiff’s vote. The court held
that the plaintiff had a right to vote and this legal right was violated by the defendant. He
would therefore, have a remedy at law. The plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the
defendant was held liable.

Difference

Injuria Sine Damnum refers to legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any physical injury,
whereas Damnum Sine Injuria refers to a physical injury suffered by the plaintiff, but no
damage is caused to the legal rights as there is no violation of them. Another distinction is
that the of actionable in law, so Injuria Sine Damnum is actionable because there is a
violation of legal right, whereas the other is not because no legal right is violated.

Conclusion

The main goal of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that no ground of action or cause of
action exists for a person who acts within reasonable limits even if the other person suffers
losses as a result, whereas the main goal of the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum is that if a
person's legal right is violated, a cause of action arises and the person whose legal right has
been infringed suffers losses.

The two maxims conclude that one is a moral wrong for which the law provides no remedy
even if it causes great loss or detriment to the plaintiff, whereas the other is a legal wrong for
which the law provides a legal remedy even if there is a violation of a private right without
actual loss or detriment in that particular case.