“She sells seashells by the seashore….The shells she sells are seashells, I’m sure” – This is a tongue twister for everyone else. For students of Law, one brain twister that matters is “Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria”. To understand what the two legal maxims mean, we need to break the words jumbled. Injuria hints at injury, which means ‘infringement of a legal right’; Sine means ‘without’; and damnum hints at damages, which means substantial harm/loss/damages. While the two maxims are utterly confusing for sounding similar and using not so delineated terms, here is an attempt to simplify. Given below is a discussion over damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damnum with case laws and examples to help the law students understand what it actually is.
Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria – Explained Below
Damnum Sine Injuria
There are times when you suffer a loss, but the act due to which loss happened was a legal one, and you have no right to legal action in such a case. A harm to a person which is not recognised by the applicable laws is not subject to compensation. The legal maxim damnum sine injuria lays such a principle where people do suffer damages, but there is no infringement of legal rights. Thus, there is no cause of action as per the law.
Examples to understand Damnum Sine Injuria
- Common Resources – There are some natural resources like rivers, forests, etc. which belong to all. Thus, if your neighbour has more water consumption from the common well that your locality shares, you do not have a legal right to sue the neighbour for the same.
- Healthy Competition – You have the right to work and conduct your business in order to make profits. But your right does not restrict another person’s right to business. Thus, if someone starts a similar business adjacent to yours, and it significantly affects your profits due to substantial competition, you have no right to sue the competitor.
Damnum Sine Injuria Famous Cases
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) – Foreign Court
The defendant opened a rival school adjacent to the Gloucester Grammar School, with lower school fees which led to attracting students of Gloucester Grammar School. This resulted in significant loss of revenue since students from Gloucester Grammar School got admission in the defendant’s school. When the School claimed damages for the loss suffered due to a rival school, the Court observed that though the plaintiff suffered financial losses, it was a healthy and lawful competition. It did not violate any legal rights of Gloucester Grammar School.
Mogul Steamship Co v McGregor (1889) – Foreign Court
The plaintiff in this case was an independent steamship owner who sued four other steamship owners who collaborated to offer concessions keeping control of the ports driving off the plaintiff and others from the field. The shippers were offered additional concessions if someone exclusively dealt with the collaborating steamship owners. The plaintiffs were rendered without any profits to send their ships. The Court held that the defendants made an effort to protect their own profits and trade, which was a lawful objective. Since no unlawful means were used, the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the defendants.
Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir (1976) – Indian Court
The plaintiff in this case sued the Producers, Directors and others restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture named “Jai Santoshl Maa” for hurting religious feelings. The Gujarat High Court concluded that the movie was not being shown publicly to everyone, but only to those who paid to see it. It was held that the plaintiffs did not have a civil right which was infringed, and thus, they did not have any cause of action either.
Also read about the volenti non fit injuria legal maxim
Injuria Sine Damnum
When we talk about a person’s rights, the focus is on legal ones. In other words, there are statutory laws which entitle people to specific rights. In case of violation, of such rights, you may not always suffer an actual loss or damage, but the right entitles you to bring a legal action against the violator. This is what the injuria sine damnum legal maxim lays. The person whose legal right has been infringed has enough cause of action and enjoys the right to legal remedy, regardless of any express harm to the person or his/her property.
Examples of Injuria Sine Damnum
- Right to way – Suppose that there are two ways to your home from the outer lane – one is shorter while the other is more time consuming. You chose the shorter path, but someone blocked your path and did not allow you to pass. In such as case, you had the legal right to way. Though you did not suffer any loss for being restricted from shorter path, you had the right to way, and this gives you the right to initiate legal action against the person who blocked your way.
- Right to vote – While the laws in India give you the right to cast your vote and elect your favourite candidate, not giving a vote does not cause any harm to you as a voter. However, illegal restriction against voting attracts cause of action in the Court of Law.
- Wrongful Detention – If someone confines you in a particular place against your will and the applicable laws, you have the right to seek legal recourse regardless of whether you suffered any significant losses due to such detention.
Injuria Sine Damnum Landmark Cases
Injuria Sine Damnum: Ashby v. White (1703) – UK Court
When we talk about famous cases on the legal maxim injuria sine damno, Ashby v. White is the first one which pops in mind. In this case, a qualified voter for the Parliamentary elections. He was restricted by a public officer from casting his vote. The Court held that right to vote was a legal right which could not be unlawfully denied.
Lala Sain Das v. Badu Ujagar Singh (1939) – Indian court
In this case, a trespasser did not cause any physical damage, but the unauthorised entry by the trespasser entitled the property owner to compensation. The Court upheld the legal and exclusive right to use and enjoy the said property, which was breached by the trespasser.
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) – Indian Court
While the case of Ashby v. White was that of a voter in general, Bhim Singh was a member of the Legislative Assembly who was unlawfully detained and prevented from attending the assembly session. The Supreme Court of India held that Bhim Singh’s constitutional rights were violated by the Police’s authoritarian action, and therefore awarded him compensation of Rs 50,000.
