Injuria sine Damnum–

Below you will find the Definition, Meaning, Examples, Landmark Case, Case Laws in India, and more information related to “Injuria sine Damnum”.

Injuria sine Damnum PDF-

Download PDF

Download Injuria sine Damnum in Tort PDF from the above link 🔗

Injuria sine Damnum in Tort-

In tort law, “injuria sine damnum” is a Latin maxim that translates to “injury without damage.” It essentially means that a person can have a valid legal claim even if they haven’t suffered any actual harm or loss.

Injuria sine Damnum Definition:

“Injuria sine damnum” is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “injury without damage.” In the realm of tort law, it signifies a situation where there is a violation of a legal right, but without any actual harm or loss suffered by the person whose right was infringed.

Here’s a breakdown of the key elements:

Injuria (Injury): This refers to the infringement or violation of a legally protected right. It could be a right granted by common law, statute, or even constitutional provisions.
Sine (Without): This simply means the absence of something.
Damnum (Damage): This refers to actual harm, loss, or damage that a person might suffer as a consequence of someone else’s actions. It could be physical, financial, emotional, or reputational.

Injuria sine Damnum Meaning:

In Simple words, “Injuria sine damnum” means you can still take legal action because your right was violated, even though you didn’t suffer any actual loss. It’s about protecting your rights, even if no direct harm occurred.

Injuria sine Damnum Examples-

1. Trespass to Land

Scenario: Imagine someone walks across your property without your permission, even if they don’t damage anything. They simply cross your lawn.
Why it’s “injuria sine damnum”: This is a classic example. Even though no harm was done (no flowers crushed, no belongings stolen), your legal right to exclusive possession of your property was violated. This is the “injuria” (legal injury). You can sue them for trespass even if you can’t prove any actual “damnum” (damage).

2. Defamation (Libel or Slander)

Scenario: Someone spreads a false rumor about you, but it doesn’t seem to affect your reputation or cause you any tangible loss.
Why it’s “injuria sine damnum”: Defamation protects your reputation. Even if the rumor didn’t lead to you losing your job or friends, the false statement itself is an attack on your character, a legal injury. This is enough to potentially have a case, even without clear proof of damage.

3. Denial of Voting Rights

Scenario: A qualified voter is wrongly prevented from casting their ballot in an election, even if their preferred candidate wins.
Why it’s “injuria sine damnum”: The right to vote is a fundamental right. Even if the person’s vote wouldn’t have changed the election outcome, their right was violated. This is the “injuria.” The lack of impact on the result is the absence of “damnum,” but the violation of the right is still actionable.

Injuria sine Damnum Landmark cases-

Landmark case of “Injuria sine Damnum” is Ashby v White (1703), Whereas in India Landmark case of “Injuria sine Damnum” is Bhim Singh v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985).

Injuria sine Damnum Ashby v White (1703)

Below are some Facts and Significance of Ashby v White (1703):

Facts: Mr. Ashby was a voter who was wrongfully prevented from voting in an election, even though his candidate won. He suffered no actual harm in the sense that the election outcome wasn’t affected.
Significance: This is THE foundational case for “injuria sine damnum.” It established that the right to vote is a legally protected right, and interfering with that right is actionable even if no actual loss results. The court emphasized that “where there is a right, there is a remedy.”

Injuria sine Damnum case law India

The Landmark case of “Injuria sine Damnum” is Bhim Singh v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985). Let’s discuss it below:

1. Bhimsingh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)

Below are some Facts and Significance of Bhimsingh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985):

Facts: Mr. Bhim Singh, a member of the Legislative Assembly, was unlawfully detained by the police, preventing him from attending a session of the assembly.
Significance: This Indian case reinforced the principle of “injuria sine damnum” in the context of fundamental rights. The court held that the unlawful detention was a violation of Mr. Singh’s personal liberty and right to attend the assembly, even though no direct financial loss was shown.

2. State of Tripura v. Province of East Bengal (1951)

Below are some Facts and Significance of State of Tripura v. Province of East Bengal (1951)

Facts: This case involved a dispute over the supply of essential commodities. The Tripura government argued that the actions of the East Bengal government had violated their legal rights, even though they couldn’t prove any specific financial loss.
Significance: The Supreme Court recognized the principle of “injuria sine damnum” and held that the violation of a legal right is actionable even if no actual damage is shown. This case highlights that the focus is on the infringement of the right itself.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Below are some Facts and Significance of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Facts: This landmark case dealt with environmental pollution of the Ganga river. The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, argued that the pollution was violating the right to a clean environment, even if he couldn’t show direct personal harm.
Significance: While this case is primarily known for its environmental aspects, it also touches upon “injuria sine damnum.” The court recognized that environmental degradation can harm the community as a whole, even if individuals can’t prove specific financial losses. This case highlights the application of the principle in a broader context of public rights.

Injuria sine Damnum Cases-

Constantine v Imperial London Hotels Ltd (1944) (England)

Below are some Facts and Significance of Constantine v Imperial London Hotels Ltd (1944)

Facts: Mr. Constantine, a famous cricketer, was refused accommodation at a hotel, even though there was space available. He was not caused any direct financial harm, as he found alternative lodging.
Significance: The court held that the hotel’s refusal to accommodate him was a breach of their duty to provide accommodation to the public, and thus a violation of his legal right. This was actionable even though he didn’t suffer any actual damage. This case highlights that “injuria sine damnum” can apply even in situations where the harm is more about indignity or inconvenience than financial loss.

Injuria sine Damnum and Damnum sine Injuria difference-

Relation	Injuria sine damnum	Damnum sine injuria
Meaning	“Injury without damage”	“Damage without injury”
Concept	This refers to a situation where there is an infringement of a person’s legal rights (injuria), but they do not suffer any actual harm or loss (damnum). In other words, the person’s rights have been violated, but they have not experienced any tangible negative consequences.	This refers to a situation where a person suffers actual harm or loss (damnum), but there is no infringement of their legal rights (injuria). In other words, the person has been harmed, but no law has been violated.
Example	If someone trespasses on your property without causing any damage, they have violated your right to exclusive possession, but you have not suffered any actual harm.	If a new competitor opens a business next to yours and you lose some customers as a result, you may have suffered harm (damnum), but there is no legal injury (injuria) because fair competition is generally not considered a wrongful act.
Legal implication	In cases of “injuria sine damnum,” the person may still have a legal remedy, even if they have not suffered actual harm. This is because the law recognizes the importance of protecting legal rights, even if there are no immediate negative consequences.	In cases of “damnum sine injuria,” there is generally no legal remedy available because there is no legal wrong to be addressed
Legal Remedy	Yes, Legal Reemdy is available.	No legal remedy is provided.
Legal wrong	Presence of Legal wrong.	Absence of a legal wrong.

Injuria sine Damnum MCQ questions and answers

Below are some MCQ questions and answers regarding Injuria sine Damnum:

1. Maxim “Injuria sine Damnum” means:

(a) Violation of legal right without any damage.
(b) Violation of legal right with damage.
(c) Damage without violation of legal right.
(d) There is no right without a Remedy.

Ans: (a)

2. The Maxim “Injuria sine Damnum” has been explained in:

(a) Donodgue V. Stevenson
(b) Winterbottom V. Wright
(c) Ashby V. White
(d) Lumley V. Gye

Ans: (c)

3. Injuria sine Damnum means ___________.

Ans: Injury without Damage

Explanation: Legal injury done here even if no expressed damage have been occurred in Ashby V. White.

4. Injuria sine Damnum means:

(a) Infringement of private legal rights without damage or loss.
(b) Infringement of private Public rights without damage or loss.
(c) Both (a) and (B) are right.
(d)Both (a) and (B) are wrong.