Ashby v.

White (1703)
Citation 92 ER 126, Volume 92

Date of
1 January 1703
Judgment

Court Court of King’s Bench

Plaintiff Ashby

Defendant White

Bench Holt CJ, Powell J, Powy J, Gould J.

Tort Law, Legal maxim: Damnum Sine Injuria, Injuria sine damnum
Referred
means and Ubi jus ibi remedium means
FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, a complaint was filed against Mr. White, who was a
constable. An election was being conducted in Aylesbury. During
elections, Mr. Ashby, who was a cobbler, went for voting. He was
aggrieved by the actions of a police constable as he stopped him from
voting. The constable stated that he was not a settled inhabitant of the
state, despite of Mr. Asby being a qualified voter and a legitimate
citizen of the country. Although, the party to whom the plaintiff
wanted to give a vote eventually won.

ISSUES

Whether a person can claim rights over injury suffered by him due to
the action of another person?

ARGUMENTS

The Plaintiff side argued that Mr. Ashby was a qualified voter and no
one took his voting right despite of any circumstances. As a dignified
citizen, Mr. White cannot aggrieve him by stopping him from voting.
The defendant side argued that Mr. Asby did not suffer any damage
as the party to whom he was going to vote eventually won the
election. Which means that not giving one vote to Mr. Ashby didn’t
make any difference.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the legal maxim injuria sine damnum will apply in
this case,which means injury without damage as there was a violation
of legal rights, even though there were no physical damages done to
the plaintiff. And as per ubi jus ibi remedium, in violation of legal
rights, a remedy must be given.

Case Analysis: Bhim Singh v/s Jammu And Kashmir

By Aayushi Bhatti | Views 37175
15 4 1 Blogger4 pocket5 Digg5

Brief Facts Of The Case:

The petitioner a member of legislative assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was arrested and
detained in police custody. He was deliberately prevented from attending the parliament
sessions to be held on 11th September 1985. He was arrested under section 153A of Ranbir
Penal Code was registered against him for delivering a malicious/ seditious speech at the
public gathering near the parade ground in Jammu on 8th September 1985.

He was not produced before any magistrate until the 13th of September and he was
produced before magistrate within a requisite time period that is 24 hours. As a
consequence of this, there was also a voting session at the assembly which he apparently
missed, where his vote was very crucial but the person to whom he wanted to cast the vote
won but his right to vote was infringed.

Name Of The Judge: O. Chinnapa Reddy And V. Khalid - Name Of The Court: Supreme
Court Of India
Date Of The Decision: 22nd November, 1985 - Citation: Air 1986 Sc 494
Plaintiff: Bhim Singh - Defendant: State Of Jammu & Kashmir

Arguments Advanced Of The Case:

Petitioner:
The learned counsel from the side of the petitioner openly denied the other parties
argument that he was produced in the front of the magistrate on 11th September 1985 and
in front of the sub-judge on 13th September 1985 and even to be examined by any doctor
to obtain a medical certificate that was used for obtaining a remand for one day from the
Sub Judge. They accept that on 14th of September 1985 his client was produced before the
Sub Judge, Jammu, and remanded for 2 days of judicial custody.
They also accept that thereafter on the 16th of September, his client was brought in front of
the Additional Sessions Judge and was granted bail. They further also argued that during
police custody his client had been harassed by the detained police.

Defendant:
Inspector � General of Police. Shri M.M. Khajuria and superintendent of Police, Anantnag,
Shri M.A. Mir contented that on 10th of September 1985, the police control room sent a
notice to them asking the petitioner to be arrested and also after the arrest, the petitioner
was brought to District Headquarters as instructed and given necessities.

Officers were only asked to pay attention to whether the petitioner had travelled safely
through the Udhampur region they further added that on 11th of September 1985, the
petitioner was produced before the court and the Executive Magistrate First Class signed to
keep petitioner under police custody for a period of 2 days and on expiry of the remand
extended it for two more days, further remand for one day from Sub -Judge on 14th
September and 2 more days of judicial custody was granted by the judge.

Judgement:
After hearing the arguments from both the parties and considering the facts of the case the
hon�ble Supreme court observed that the law enforcement officials acted in a very most
arbitrary way and ruled �if the non-public liberty of a member of the legislature is to be
played within this fashion one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals�.

Moving forward the apex court reminded the duties of �police officials who are the
custodians of law and order within the state should have the best respect for private liberty
of citizens and will not float the laws by stopping to such weird acts of lawlessness.
Custodians of law and order mustn't become depredators of civil liberties.

Their duty is to safeguard and to abduct.� Chinnappa Reddy J. and Khalid J. followed the
choice of Supreme Court in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases and expressed the
view that when someone involves us with the complaint that he has been arrested and
imprisoned with mischievous and malicious intent which his Constitutional and legal rights
were invaded, the mischief or malice and invasion might not be washed away or whisked-
away by his being unfettered.

The petitioner for such gross violation of his fundamental rights granted to him by the
constitution of the country was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary
costs. within the cases of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr. and within the case
of Sebastian Hongray v. UOI, it absolutely was noticed that just in case of such violation of
the basic rights provided by the Constitution, it's necessary to compensate the victim by way
of exemplary costs. The respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was ordered to pay to
the petitioner five thousand rupees within 2 months from the date of the judgment. the
number was to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court which might then be paid to the
petitioner.

Case Analysis:
The wrongdoing of imprisonment is one in every of the foremost severe kinds of human
rights violations. He was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the assembly session
and violation of fundamental right to personal liberty. This case brings forward the varied
banned detentions by the force. simply because an individual has been alleged of a wrong,
it doesn't mean that the person loses all his basic rights.

Even the prisoners have human rights the proper of an individual to private liberty,
freedom, associated life with dignity has been bonded by the Constitution underneath
Articles twenty and 21[1] can't be abrogated even throughout an emergency, and
imprisonment is inharmonious of an equivalent. the very fact that a convict is captive and
needs to serve a sentence, doesn�t offer the jail authorities any right to torment or torture
him unnecessarily. If the person is unlawfully confined by any lawman or government
officer, then he or a person on his behalf will file for the legal document of habeas corpus.
The legal document ensures the freedom of the one that is confined.

The one that is near to be incorrectly in remission or captive may use affordable force so as
to stop false arrest. He will use force for self-protection however needs to certify that the
force used is affordable in line with the circumstances. Also, within the renowned case of �
D.K.Basu v.State of state, the rules on the rights of the in remission person were noted.
Right to be made before a magistrate while not delay- The CrPC underneath Section 56 and
76(2) mandates that person arrested shall be procured before magistrate having jurisdiction
without unnecessary delay.

Right of not being detained for over twenty four hours- This provides that the sensational
authority is needed to supply the in remission person while not surplus delay before the
justice and in no case such delay shall be over twenty four hours. However, the stipulated
amount of 24 hours excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
Magistrate�s Court. If this demand isn't followed by the sensational authority then the
arrest are deemed to be unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of the case is Injuria sine damno. It means violation of legal right without
causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. It is actionable per se which means there
is no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, the plaintiff has suffered any harm. For
a successful action, the only thing that has to be proved that the plaintiff�s legal right has
been violated. Here the plaintiff�s legal right were violated.

He was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the assembly session and violation of
fundamental right to personal liberty. He argued that he was not produced before a
magistrate within a requisite time period. It was held that this was the violation of his
fundamental rights. As the plaintiff�s legal rights were infringed. Defendant was held liable
and was ordered to pay RS 50,000/- as exemplary damages by supreme court.
 GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR
SCHOOL CASE [1410]
CITATION (1410) YB 11 Hen IV

YEAR OF JUDGMENT 1410

STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Torts law

PLAINTIFF Gloucester Grammar School

DEFENDENT School Teacher

BENCH Justice Y.B. Hillary

INTRODUCTION

The Gloucester Grammar School Case of 1410 is a significant legal

landmark in the realm of Damnum Sine Injuria, a legal principle that
translates to “damage without injury” in Latin. This case exemplifies
the early application of the doctrine, showcasing the distinction
between harm suffered (damnum) and a legal injury (injuria) within
the context of tort law. The case sheds light on the evolving legal
understanding of compensable harm and explores the nuances of how
the law grapples with situations where a party experiences loss or
detriment without a corresponding violation of legal rights.
Understanding the intricacies of this case is pivotal for
comprehending the foundation and development of the Damnum
Sine Injuria principle in legal jurisprudence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves a school teacher who worked at Gloucester

Grammar School and later left his position to start a new school
nearby. The teacher significantly lowered the fee at his new school
compared to the original school. As he was very famous among the
students thus, due to his reputation and the lower fees, many students
left Gloucester Grammar School and joined the new school, resulting
in financial losses for the original institution.

The owner of Gloucester Grammar School, the petitioner, filed a

lawsuit seeking compensation for the monetary damages caused by
the teacher’s actions in establishing a competing school in close
proximity.

The petitioner alleged that the establishment of the new school

adversely affected his school’s finances and sought redress for the
economic harm suffered due to the teacher’s actions.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether defendant be held responsible for the monetary loss

suffered by the plaintiff, just because he had fixed a rival
school and damaged the right of plaintiff?
2. Whether this case cover the essentials of Damnum sine injuria?
And if yes then the defendant couldn’t be held liable?

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

1. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, a former teacher of

Gloucester Grammar School, intentionally established a
competing school in close proximity. This action was seen as a
deliberate attempt to draw students away from the plaintiff’s
school and attract them to the new school due to lower fees,
causing a significant decline in the plaintiff’s student
enrolment.
2. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s actions directly
led to a substantial reduction in tuition fees at the new school,
which attracted a significant number of students who were
originally enrolled in Gloucester Grammar School. As a result,
the plaintiff’s school suffered a significant loss of revenue due
to reduced enrolment and lowered fees.
3. The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant’s reputation and
influence as a former teacher at Gloucester Grammar School
 were utilized to lure students to the new school. The plaintiff
argued that this exploitation of reputation harmed the
goodwill and standing of Gloucester Grammar School in the
community, impacting its ability to attract and retain students.
4. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s actions were not
only unethical but also constituted unfair trade practices. By
deliberately undercutting the fees of Gloucester Grammar
School and poaching its students, the defendant engaged in
unfair competition that directly led to financial losses for the
plaintiff’s institution.
5. The plaintiff sought compensation for the pecuniary losses
incurred, requesting the court to award damages that would
adequately cover the financial harm suffered by Gloucester
Grammar School due to the defendant’s actions. The plaintiff
sought a fair and just monetary remedy to mitigate the
adverse impact on the school’s finances and reputation.

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDENT

1. The defendant argued that he had the right to leave his

previous job and start a new school. He emphasized that this
decision was based on his personal choices and aspirations to
establish an independent educational institution.
2. The defendant highlighted that he lowered the fee at his new
school as a legitimate competitive strategy. By offering lower
fees, he aimed to attract students and create a viable business
model, which is a common practice in a competitive market.
3. There was no contractual or legal obligation that prevented the
defendant from starting a new school in the vicinity, he
emphasized that he acted within his legal rights. Without any
non-compete clauses or restrictive agreements, he had the
freedom to establish a new educational institution.
4. The defendant argued that the new school was beneficial for
the community as it provided an affordable educational
option, making education accessible to a broader segment of
 the population. This would be in line with the societal interest
in promoting education.
5. The defendant maintained that his intention was not to cause
harm or financial losses to Gloucester Grammar School.
Rather, he was pursuing his own career goals and
entrepreneurial aspirations, and any impact on the previous
school was an unintended consequence of fair competition.
6. The defendant highlighted that the establishment of a new
school offered diversity in educational choices, allowing
parents and students to choose an institution that aligned
better with their preferences and financial capabilities.

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

This case applied the principal of “Damnum sine Injuria” which

asserts that while harm or damage has occurred, no violation of legal
rights has taken place. It is employed as a defence in certain cases,
prioritizing the significance of a legal wrong. Essentially, it argues
that the mere occurrence of damage, without accompanying legal
wrongdoing, doesn’t warrant legal action as a defence.

On the other hand, “Injuria sine Damnum” posits that a legal injury
has been inflicted, even if no tangible harm or damage is evident. This
is typically punishable under the law as it encroaches upon a legal
right, making it a punishable offense. This principle is generally not
accepted as a valid defence, emphasizing that causing a legal injury,
regardless of the absence of direct damage, can be subject to legal
consequences.”

JUDGEMENT

The court held that Gloucester Grammar School lacked grounds for a
case against the defendant since they experienced financial losses but
no legal rights of the plaintiff were violated. The situation was seen as
a typical scenario of business rivalry between Gloucester Grammar
School and the new school. Consequently, establishing another school
with a similar or discounted fee structure was not considered a
wrongful or injurious act towards Gloucester Grammar School or its
proprietor.

The court unequivocally affirmed that Gloucester Grammar School’s

claim against the defendant was unsubstantiated, emphasizing that
the defendant hadn’t engaged in any wrongful actions against them,
resulting in no legal harm to the school. The defendant’s act of
establishing a competing school was viewed as a legitimate business
action, and hence, Gloucester Grammar School did not suffer any
injury.

Thus, the court ruled in the favour of the defendant and did not hold
him liable for this act.

ANALYSIS

According to the Gloucester Grammar School Case judgment, the

defendant was absolved of liability because there was no violation of
the plaintiff’s legal rights. I completely agree with this verdict. To
establish liability under Tort Law, three essential conditions must be
met:

1. Wrongful Act
2. Legal Damage
3. Legal Remedy

All three conditions must be satisfied for the defendant to be held

responsible for damages. In the Gloucester Grammar School case,
there was no legal damage incurred. The fact that the plaintiff
suffered financial losses does not automatically impose an obligation
on the defendant to compensate for those losses. The defendant
established the school legally, providing education to students. While
setting up the school may have been morally questionable, fulfilling
the first condition, the absence of legal damage meant the defendant
was not required to provide compensation.

Moreover, the students who transferred from Gloucester Grammar

School to the rival school committed no wrongdoing; they simply
exercised their legal right to choose their preferred place of study. If
they found the defendant’s school more appealing than Gloucester
Grammar School, they had the liberty to switch. Consequently, the
plaintiff had no grounds to demand compensation despite
experiencing losses. An individual does not possess the authority to
prevent another individual from operating a legally sanctioned
business.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the court made the right call in the Gloucester Grammar
School case by asserting that penalizing individuals for losses
stemming from competition is unjust. It’s unlawful to punish people
for exercising their rights, even if it causes dissatisfaction to others.
While an action may be morally wrong, it doesn’t necessarily amount
to a legal transgression resulting in legal harm. Legal punishment
should only be meted out if the damages incurred are illegal and the
action violates another individual’s rights.

If this were not the principle, it would create chaos in the business
world, with competitors suing each other endlessly. Each person
should have the freedom to choose how they expand their profession.
In this specific case, the defendant’s decision to leave the school and
establish a new one was well within their rights. Similarly, students
had the freedom to choose where they wanted to study. No one
should encroach upon these rights of both the students and the
teacher, unless it’s stipulated by law.

Therefore, in my perspective, Justice Y.B. Hillary’s verdict in the

Gloucester Grammar School case was accurate and ethically sound.

PADMAVATI VS.
DUGGANAIKA, (1975)
 CITATION 1 Kam LJ 93 1975, A.C.J 222

DATE OF
09 AUGUST 1974
JUDGEMENT

COURT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PLAINTIFF PADMAVATI

DUGGANAIKA, MOHIDDIN,SKANDIA INSURANCE

RESPONDENT
COMPLANY

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HONNIAH & THE

BENCH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NESARGI
INTRODUCTION

This case, Padmavati vs. Dugganaika, falls under tort law. In tort law,
if a person does a wrongful conduct which results in injury on the
part of another individual, he is held accountable and must pay
damages or offer some other remedy as determined by the Court in
the case of the sufferer of such an act.

However, in some situations, even though a person suffers a loss as a

result of another person’s actions, he is unable to seek compensation
from that person due to the operation of tort defences. One of the
arguments accessible to a defendant is volenti non fit injuria, which
states that the plaintiff does not have a right to compensation since he
consented to the act that caused him harm.

What is Volenti Non-Fit Injuria: Every person has a duty under tort
law to always behave with a reasonable amount of caution to prevent
any injury that may result from their negligence in failing to do so.
For example, if a person oversees a vehicle, he had a moral obligation
to operate it carefully and within speed restrictions so that no
accidents occur that may hurt other people.

This is the basic rule in torts, however there are some exceptions that
may be used in these instances, which are known as tort defences. A
defendant can avoid culpability using these defences, while volenti
non-fit injuria is another such defence accessible to the defendant. If a
person provides his agreement to another person performing an act
that causes him to be wounded, he cannot seek compensation from
that person since the act had been one to which he had willingly
accepted. The plaintiff’s assent serves as a defence, and this defence is
known as volenti non fit injuria, which implies that no harm comes to
a consenting individual.

FACTS OF THE CASES

The defendant is Dugganaika, the person who is the proprietor of the

jeep with registration number MYS 438. On 16-3-1969. He was on his
way to Kodur from Hiriyaka. In this instance, Mohiddin, respondent
3, is the driver of the vehicle & drove it to Kodur. After arriving in
Kodur, respondent 1, Dugganaika, got out of the jeep and directed
respondent 3 to drive the jeep to Hosanagar & to check the petrol
tank.

Defendant in this matter, the driver of the car, was on his way to the
gas station. Two people took a ride in his automobile on the way.
Krishna Bhat & the deceased Ramakrislina boarded the jeep in Kodur.
The jeep thereafter began its journey towards Hosanagar and when it
had covered a distance of about one mile from kodur. Rama Rao who
was waiting for the bus to arrive gives the signal to mohiddin for
him to stop the jeep. However, the driver failed to respond to Rama
Rao’s signal.

It was observed that the vehicle was slowing down and Rama Rao
noticed a noise emerging from the jeep As a result, he issued the
command to proceed to the jeep. Following that, the driver began
driving the jeep, and suddenly the right-hand portion of the main
body of the vehicle flew apart, throwing the driver and Ramakrishna
out. Ramakrishna was seriously injured and afterwards proclaimed
dead.

It is essential to highlight that the defence of unavoidable accidents is

only viable where the incident is unexpected and has unforeseen
consequences notwithstanding the use of reasonable precautions and
safeguards. If the incident in question is foreseen and avoidable, for
instance, heavy rain or flooding, and the resulting harm can be
averted with adequate preventative measures, then the defence of an
inevitable accident fails.

ISSUES RELATED

 The main issue in this case is whether the accident was a result
of respondent (Mohiddin) negligent driving?
 Was the driver, Harrison, in giving a lift to the deceased man
acting within the scope of his employment?
 Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applies when there
is no direct express consent?

ELEMENTS OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA:

There are, however, some important factors or requirements that must

be included in a case for the defense of volenti non fit injuria to be
used, and it’s only if all of them are met can this defense be used to
avoid responsibility.

There are 2 essential elements Volenti non-fit injuria

1. The plaintiff is aware of the danger.

2. With understanding of the risk, the plaintiff has willingly
agreed to endure the harm.

Therefore, a defendant is absolved of obligation where the plaintiff is

informed of the risk of damage that is expected to be created by an act
and nevertheless chooses to conduct the action and thus accepts to
incur the injury.

However, simple awareness of the risk is insufficient for the adoption

of this defense. This is commonly referred to as Scienti non fit injuria,
meaning implies that mere knowledge does not imply agreement to
the risk. Thus, knowing anything is just a partial fulfillment of the
prerequisites for applying volenti non fit injuria.
Burden of Proof – In the event that the defendant asserts one of the
defenses about volenti non fit injuria, the burden of proof is on him to
demonstrate that the plaintiff had a full understanding of the act and
agreed to the risk inherent in the act, and the defendant must also
demonstrate that the plaintiff was fully aware of the degree of risk
present in the act in order to be successful in proving this defence.

CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff’s assent is critical in the defense of volenti non fit injuria
since the defendant will only be able to use this defense if he freely
consents to an act.

CONSENT OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent’s contention rested on the fact that the jeep was not
being driven carelessly or recklessly by respondent 3 and that it was a
complete accident that one of the bolts holding the wheel to the axle
of the vehicle broke loose & the wheel ripped away from its axle.

JUDGEMENT

The Court stated that this was a matter of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, that
indicates that if an individual freely conducts a certain activity to
which he understands there may be a risk of injury, he has willingly
decided to expose himself to the hazard if it occurs. In such instances,
the master or servant will not be held responsible for any harm that is
inflicted to the individual as a result of any hazard that he willingly
agreed to participate in. In a comparable manner in this situation,
other people willingly accepted a ride in the car despite the possibility
of a mishap.

Held – neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, firstly,
because it was a case of sheer accident and secondly, the strangers
mad voluntarily got into the jeep and as such, the principle of volenti
non-fit injuria was applicable to the case.

CONCLUSION
Accident defense does not only apply to car accidents, but also to a
variety of other situations. As in the case of Padmavati vs.
Dugganaika. Volenti non fit injuria is a tort law defense in which the
person who commits an act of violence is excused coming from
accountability considering the victim of such an inappropriate
provides his consent to the spare of such an act, and this consent is
needed to be free for this defence to be effective in a case. This defense
is also characterized by limitations, including rescue instances and the
recklessness of the defendant under which the defendant shall be held
accountable even if the plaintiff gives consent. Thus, in allowing this
defense, courts must confirm that the elements of the defense are met
and that the act does not fall within the limitations set on this defense.