Damnum Sine Injuria
What is Damnum Sine
Injuria ?
- Damnum - loss or damage
- Sine - without
- Injuria -Injury to provide legal rights
Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to
injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of
any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation
of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the
plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t 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 is present.
Damnum Sine Injuria, the literal meaning of the
word refers to loss or damage in terms of money, property or any physical loss
without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even
if the act so did was intentional and was done to cause injury to other but
without infringing on the legal right of the person.
What is Injuria Sine Damno
?
- Injuria -Injury to provide legal right
- Sine - without
- Damnum or Damno - loss or damage
Injuria Sine Damno refers to the damage suffered
by the plaintiff due to the violation of legal rights done by the other, even
though there is no harm or loss or injury being suffered by the plaintiff.
Hence in this, the plaintiff has to only prove that his/her legal rights have
been violated, as it is actionable per se.
Injuria Sine Damno is a legal maxim, which means that
injury or loss or damage so caused to the plaintiff without suffering any
physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term, where ‘Injuria’ refers to injury
‘Sine’ refers to without and ‘Damno’ refers to a property or any physical loss,
therefore the term refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss’. Here,
in this case, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove the damages so suffered, he
only has to prove that there is some legal damage suffered by him, that is the
action so brought is actionable per se. Like
for example, where A roams around B’s house without any justification then, in
that case, there is a violation of the legal right of B and therefore this
maxim is applicable.
This maxim is well explained in the case Ashby vs.
White where the plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary
election, while the defendant who was a returning officer in election
wrongfully refused to take a vote of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff
didn’t suffer any loss by such wrongful act as the candidate he wants’ to vote
on the election, the legal rights of the plaintiff were infringed and therefore
the defendant was held liable.
Another leading case is of Bhim
Singh vs. State of J. & K., here in this case the petitioner was
an M.L.A. of J. & k. parliamentary assembly. While he was going to attend
the assembly session, police there wrongfully arrested him. He was not even
presented before the magistrate within the stipulated time. Resultant was that
the person was wrongfully deprived of his legal right to attend the meeting and
moreover his fundamental right i.e. Article 21 of the constitution was also
violated. It was held that the respondent was responsible, and the petitioner
was liable to receive Rs. 50,000 from the defendant.
In case o Injuria Sine Damno the loss
suffered is not any physical loss but due to the violation of legal right.
Therefore, damages received by the aggrieved party is because of some kind of
loss is being suffered, and hence the amount for damages are determined just to
compensate the victim. The amount for compensation can even be rs. 5. However,
where the violation of a legal right is owing to mischievous and malicious act,
the number of damages so fixed can be increased as done in case of Bhim Singh’s
case.
The basic difference
between the two is in their terms only. As Injuria Sine Damno is the legal
injury so caused to the plaintiff without any damage to physical injury, while
in case of Damnum Sine Injuria it refers to the damages suffered physically by
the plaintiff but no damage is being caused to the legal rights as there is no
violation of it. Another point of difference is that the of actionable in
law, so Injuria Sine Damno is actionable per se as there is a violation of
legal right, while the other is not as there is no violation of any legal right
is there.
Case review : Ashby vs White
Facts : Ashby
(Plaintiff) a free burgess, was precluded from being able to exercise his right
to vote, by the actions of another, and he brought suit when he sustained
injury.
Issue : This question presents among the first issues grounded in civil rights.The issue of this case is - "whether one party may recover damages when one of his civil rights is hindered by the action of another."
Held : Chief Justice Holt
held that a plaintiff ought to be allowed to recover, because the right to vote
is a common law right and thus, an obstruction of that right should give rise
to a cause of action.
Dissent : The majority in
the Court of King’s Bench actually held that the verdict for the Plaintiff should be reversed.
Discussion : When the actions of
one person serve to hinder the rights of another, a cause of action may arise.
No comments