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 deals where there is no infringement of any legal right. 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:
Damnum means Damage which includes any substantial loss, harm, damage with respect to money and health.
Sine means without.
Injuria means violation of a legal right which is given by the law to the plaintiff.
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 can be in any form such as loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc. To understand this legal maxim better, Let’s discuss detailed case analysis related to this maxim.
Also read:- What is Injuria
Landmark Cases Related to Damnum Sine Injuria:-
1. Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)
Facts:-
The defendant was a school teacher in the plaintiff’s school. A conflict arose between the defendant and plaintiff, in result the defendant had decided to leave the school.
Later on, he set 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. In the end, 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 for the monetary loss. Read more..
2. Chasemore vs Richards (1859)
The decision of the landmark case of “Gloucester Grammar School” was also applied to many similar cases just like this. In Chasemore vs Richards case the plaintiff was running a mill on his own land.
For running the mill he was using stream water for a long time. The well was also dug in the premises of the plaintiff and cut the supply of 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.
Stated that this is a case of Damnum sine injuria. Since there is no legal injury, the plaintiff can not claim the damages.
Also read:- What Is a Power of Attorney
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.
0 Comments