It is a latin term which is often used in the law of torts. This legal maxim deals with damage which is caused without injury. That's why it is not enforceable by law. You can not claim damages where “damnum sine injuria” maxim apply. For more details you have to see the difference between damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damnum.
It provides the remedy for those whose legal right has been infringed. So, plaintiffs (who suffer the loss) are not allowed to claim compensation. Because the defendant is doing the act in a lawful manner and we have fundamental rights to trade, freely move throughout the country, equality and many more.
Meaning:-
Damnum sine Injuria is a famous maxim which is written in the Latin language. The meaning of this term is Damage Without Injury. Hence any damage which is caused by a person in a lawful manner will be justiciable.
In simple - Person suffers from damage, but if there is no breach of legal rights of a person then neither can be sued in the court nor can a person claim for damages.
For example - A opened a readymade garments shop just opposite to B’s shop and then B’s sales started decreasing. Even though I have intentionally opened the shop to cause damage in-spite of this “B” can not go to the court of law. Because of absence, violation of legal rights.
Damnum Sine Injuria is divided into three parts:
This is a general principle on which this maxim is based. Where a person exercises his ordinary rights within the limits and without infringing others legal rights. In spite of this another person getting damage or harm it will be justiciable in the eyes of law.
Damage appeared can be in any form of loss such as in respect to the monetary loss, comfort, health, etc. To understand this legal maxim better, Let’s discuss in detailed case analysis related to this maxim.
Damnum sine Injuria - Examples
There are some examples discussed below under which there is no legal infringement but the harm occurs. This is the best way for illustrating the principle of Damnum sine Injuria:
Market Competition: Whenever a new business comes into the market and attracts the customers of other businesses because of it the other business suffers loss. But their legal right has not been violated.
It causes harm financially only and it is legal in the market as long as it is fair competition. Remember, it should be just and legal without any unfair trade practices then only it fall under the ambit of Damnum sine Injuria.
Employee Transition: An employer may have financial loss when an employee leaves one company to work for a rival company, carrying with them some clients or customers. However, usually this case falls under this maxim but if the employee violates confidentiality agreements or a contract then it does not come under doctrine of Damnum sine Injuria.
Price Reduction Strategy: This strategy can lead to financial suffering to the neighboring competitors and this loss will not be considered as a legal injury.
However, such losses are referred to as Damnum sine Injuria, so long as the price drop is legal and does not constitute an anti-competitive plan.
Landmark Cases Related to Damnum Sine Injuria:-
1. Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)
Facts:- The defendant was working as a school teacher in the school owned by the plaintiff. A conflict arose between the defendant and plaintiff, in result the defendant had decided to leave the school.
Later on, he opened up a rival school next to the plaintiff’s school. Students started to cancel the admission from plaintiff school and join defendant’s school because of their teaching ability.
They both came into competition, where the plaintiff got the monetary loss. Later on, the plaintiff sued the defendant for compensation.
Issues Raised In This Case:
Can the defendant be held liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff?
Can we apply the maxim “damnum sine injuria” here? If yes, then the defendant will not be held liable?
Judgment:
It was held by the court of law that no suit could lie against the defendant. It was said by the judges that the defendant could not be held liable because - This is a case of “damage without injury” where no legal right has been violated. So there is no ground for compensation that has arisen in respect to the monetary loss. Read more..
2. Chasemore vs Richards (1859)
The decision of the landmark judgement in “Gloucester Grammar School case” was also applied into similar cases just like this. In this case the plaintiff was running a mill on his own property.
For running the mill he was using stream water for a long time. The well was also dug in the property of the plaintiff and cut the underground water supply.
Later, the water quantity was reduced in the stream due to this owner's mill being closed. The plaintiff suffered the loss and sued the defendant for compensation. For this case, the court had applied the rules of precedence judgment from Gloucester grammar case.
Under this judgement the honorable court stated - this is a case of Damnum sine injuria. Since there is no legal injury, the plaintiff can not claim the damages.
3. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Board of High School (1981)
The plaintiff filed a case before the court and argued that he was entitled to damages. He said because he had suffered a loss of one year due to the wrongful detention (section 340 of IPC) by the principal.
In this case also, the court held that the plaintiff was not allowed to get the damages because misconstructions of regulations does not amount to tort.
From these three case analyses, now we can assume that compensation is not the ground of action despite the fact that monetary loss, health or any other type of loss is caused but if the infringement of legal right is absent.
To follow the concept of Damnum sine injuria, We have to follow the rules which were laid down by the Gloucester grammar case. The court had laid down the rules that: If there is no infringement of legal right, then no damages can be claimed.
Conclusion
These are the two important maxim under the law of tort. First one we have discussed above in this article another one is known as Injuria sine Damnum. You can not complete the syllabus of tort without these legal maxims. In these doctrines, Damnum sine injuria is morally wrong for which the law provides no remedy and another one is legal wrong (Injuria sine damnum) for which tort provides the remedy for.
If there is actual loss to any person and his legal right not has been violated then it can not come under tort to take any kind of remedy. On the other hand, law protects the person who’s legal right has been violated.
