Understanding the Constituents of Tort: Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria Explained

OVERVIEW

Here, in this topic, we are going to understand two constituents of tort which are named Injuria sine damnum, and Damnun sine injuria which means injury without damages and damage without injury, let us see what they are about with their meaning and other material things. Let us begin with the topic.

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

• This legal maxim refers to the damage without injury which means that there is no infringement of legal rights vested with the plaintiff, or victim.
•  In the case of damnum sine injuria, no case lies because there is not any rights are infringed.
•  In this principle, if a person exercises common things, or works, within reasonable time which does not infringe others’ rights then it will not hold any liability hence there will be no action laid on the defendant.
•  Here damages refer to any substantial harm, or loss suffered in the form of money, health, etc.
•  However, if there is an act or omission done by the defendant is intentional then the court will also not grant any compensation or damages to the plaintiff because there is no infringement of legal rights.
•  It was cited in the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895). 

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM 

• Injuria sine damnum is a legal maxim that refers to injury without damages in which if a person causes any injury or infringement of rights where there is no damage has happened then it will be held liable and become actionable in the eye of law.
•  This law also gives liberty to the person if there is any threat of infringement of legal rights then it will also be actionable because it is the provision under a specific relief act under injunction and declaration.
•  For example, if a person gets false imprisonment due to some lie charges then he will have a claim for substantial damages for that false imprisonment although there was no consequential loss caused.
•  As it was cited in the case of Ashby v. White(1703). 
• In which the plaintiff was not allowed to vote in the parliamentary election which was held at that point in time. 
•  Where the defendant had wrongfully refused him to give a vote for the election. 
• So, here there was an infringement of legal rights, although it didn’t affect the result of the election there was an infringement of individual rights, so the defendant was held liable for his act.

DIFFERENCES

By learning both constituents of tort we have understood the brief of the concept. Now, by taking a comparison chart let us see how both these legal maxims are different from each other. Let us begin.

CONCLUSION

So, here at the end of the topic we have learned how these two constituents of tort are useful one is based on moral wrong which does not give any kind of remedy, whereas the other maxim is for legal infringement, where the law gives remedy to the plaintiff if the act caused infringement of legal rights.

REFERENCES

https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/

https://www.indiankanoon.com/