CONSTITUENTS OF TORTS: DAMNUM SINE INJURIA AND INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 712

This article is written by Krishna of 1^st Semester of Amity Law College, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

“Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust”[1] In law of torts there is breach of legal right vested in another person. In this paper the main focused will be on essential of tort and what are the constituents of torts (Damnum sine Injuria & Injuria sine Damnum) the law of torts encompasses all the situations in which a court awards damages to a party for legally unjustifiable harm or injury caused to another. Before a tort can be established, the following three conditions must be met.

There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant, and[2]
The act or omission should result in legal damage (Injuria) for example violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff. [3]
The defendant’s wrongdoing is of a kind that warrants the existence of a legal remedy.[4]

KEYWORDS: Civil Wrong, Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust, Legal Right, Injuria, Damnum, Sine, Legal Remedy

INTRODUCTION

Most frequently, the question of whether a tort still constitutes a violation of tort if there are financial losses in the case of a tort but no legal damages

Therefore, the response will be negative because damages are only granted in tort law cases where another person’s legal rights are violated.

Damnum/ Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage in respect of money comfort, health or the like
Injuria means any legal Injury or Breach of legal right of other persons.
Sine means without.

Since what is actionable is the violation of legal right, it therefore follows that when there is no violation of legal right, no action can lie in a court of law even though the defendant act has caused same loss or harm or damage to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the true test to determine whether the defendant should be held accountable or not is not whether the plaintiff has experienced any losses, but rather whether or not the plaintiff’s lawful rights have been revoked.[5]

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

Damnum sine Injuria refers to situations in which the plaintiff has experienced actual harm despite their being no violation of any rights. Here, bodily loss in terms of funds, comfort, well-being, etc., is what is meant by actual damage. Here, there is nothing to be done. A tort cannot be defined as a simple loss of money or its value. Even the worst injury can be done to a man by another without giving rise to a legal remedy since the victim’s legal rights were not violated. The implication of the maxim is that moral wrongs cannot be made legal by law unless the victim’s rights are being infringed.[6]

GLOUCESTER GRAMMER SCHOOL CASE[7]: The plaintiff’s school employed the defendant as a teacher. Defendant left plaintiff’s school and opened his own due to a disagreement. Due to the defendant’s well-known reputation among students, guys from plaintiff’s school transferred to defendant’s school. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover damages. The defendant was found not to be liable. Even when money is lost, there is no cause of action for compensation if no one’s legal rights are violated. The defendant did not infringe upon the plaintiff’s legal rights in setting up his school. The increased competition arising from the plaintiff’s act of opening a new school had undoubtedly caused the plaintiff to incur significant damages, yet none of his

ACTON V BUNDELL[8]: In this instance, the defendant, a landowner, accidentally drained water from the plaintiff’s land—through which the water flowed underground to his well—while conducting mining activities on his property in the customary manner. It was decided that the defendant had every right to use the water for mining and did not have to reimburse the plaintiff for any damages because the defendant had not violated the plaintiff’s rights.

CHESMORE V RICHARDS[9]: For the previous sixty years, the plaintiff, a mill owner, has been using water from a stream that was supplied by rainfall that seeped through subsurface strata and into the stream without following designated channels for his mill. The plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the defendant sinking a wall on their property and pumping massive amounts of water that would have otherwise gone into the plaintiff’s stream. The defendant was found not accountable for this.

VISHNU DATT V BOARD OF H.S & INTERMIDATE EDUCATION, UP[10]: The complainant in this case was a student who had been wrongfully detained by the principal for not attending class because the regulations had been misunderstood. The plaintiff brought a complaint, arguing that he was entitled to damages because he had sustained a significant loss over the course of a year. The plaintiff’s request for compensatory damages was denied by the court on the grounds that misinterpreting rules and regulations does not actually amount to a tort.

MAYOR & CO. OF BREADFORD V PICKLES[11]: The plaintiff in this case filed a lawsuit against the defendant for digging a well on his property, which prevented water from flowing through it and cost him money because there was not enough water to distribute to the clients of the organization. The plaintiff was not entitled to compensation because the defendant had not caused him any unjust loss or violated any of his legal rights, according to the court’s application of the damnum sine injuria theory.

Therefore, even if a legal act is motivated by malice, the defendant will not be held accountable. Only if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant’s illegal actions caused his injuries will he be eligible for compensation

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

The phrase “injuria sine Damno” describes situations in which a private right is violated without any real harm or loss. Here, bodily loss in terms of funds, comfort, well-being, etc., is what is meant by actual damage. According to this principle, it is sufficient to demonstrate that harm has been inflicted; the infringement of certain rights is deemed to have caused harm in and of itself. Every individual has the ultimate right to be immune from prosecution and to possess property, and any violation of these rights is actionable in and of itself. In this case, the law presumes damage because some behaviors are so likely to cause injury because of their mischievous nature that they are strongly forbidden by the law. This adage states that actual, noticeable, or significant loss or harm is not necessary.[12]

ASHBY V WHITE (1703)[13]: In December 1701, a cobbler named Mr. Matthew Ashby showed up to vote for the British Parliament. Constable William White sent Ashby away because, according to White, “he was no settled inhabitant of the borough, and had never contributed either to church or poor.” Nevertheless, his candidate prevailed in the election, and he suffered no consequences. However, Ashby filed a lawsuit seeking significant damages since he would not accept this. The defendant argued that Ashby was not guilty since he had not lost because his candidate had won the election. The plaintiff’s lawsuit was approved. Ashby’s submissions were upheld by Lord Holt C.J., who stated that the matter in question was “a most transcendent thing, and of a high nature.

According to Lord Holt C.J., “It is impossible to prove the contrary, even though an injury does not cost the party anything. An injury is not just a financial loss; it also causes harm when it prevents a person from exercising their right.” Similar to defamatory statements, a guy who speaks about them will still be held accountable even though he does not lose any money. Therefore, even if a guy gives another a cuff on his ear for no other reason than to save a little diachylon (plaster), he will still be held accountable. Therefore, even if it does not harm him, a man will have legal action against another for riding over his property.

BHIM SINGH V STATE OF J&K[14]: Bhim Singh was barred from attending the scheduled September 11 budget session start of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on August 17, 1985. The suspension was then contested by him at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Bhim Singh departed Jammu for Srinagar to attend the Legislative Assembly session on September 9th, following the High Court’s decision to stay his suspension. On September 10, at three in the morning, he was stopped by the police while traveling. The cops took him away and held him prisoner at a secret place. Following the failure of search efforts to find him, Bhim Singh’s spouse and representative, Jayamala, petitioned the court to find him. The police inspector general was instructed by the court on September 13 to provide information. The court determined that Bhim Singh was not produced before the magistrate or sub judge who issued the police orders of remand, and that the police surreptitiously got the orders from the sub judge after hours and at the magistrate’s residence. The magistrate and sub judge’s actions were chastised by the Supreme Court, which said that they showed no concern for the matter either by casual behavior or, worse, by possibly conspiring with the police, who had acted dishonestly on purpose. The court declared that Bhim Singh’s constitutional rights had “certainly been grossly violated” and denounced the “authoritarian acts of the police.” The judges declared that there was no doubt in their minds and that the cops were just mercenaries.

In a major decision that affected tort law in India, the Supreme Court compensated Bhim Singh for his wrongful detention and false imprisonment by the police with fifty thousand rupees.

MARZETTI V WILLIAMS[15]: The plaintiff was an account holder who went to withdraw money by self-check while he had money in his account. Despite having enough money in his account, the defendant banker declined to pay the plaintiff for no apparent reason. In order to recover damages, the plaintiff sued the defendant banker. The court determined that even though the plaintiff did not incur any financial losses, the defendant was tortiously liable for refusing the customer’s check

BHIKHI OJHA v HARAKH KANDU[16]: The truth was that from the beginning of time, the Maharaja of Dumraon and his ancestors had a monopoly on the weight. The crafts and supplies are offered for sale in a bazaar, which supports their community and collects any outstanding fees from previous transactions. There, as opposed to obtaining land use rent from businesses. The plaintiff was granted the sole authority to weigh items in the bazaar and to be paid for doing so by Maharajah

The complainant is said to have filed a lawsuit for damages alleging illegal interference with the right to weigh. Furthermore, the barrier to collecting is manageable. However, evidence of this actual harm must be provided. Straight, J., remarks: “The possessive nature of the applicant is evident. The defendants infringed upon both rights, resulting in financial loss (damages). And given the harm these defendants’ activities have created, you should be able to pursue this lawsuit and perhaps even get the plaintiff’s losses reimbursed.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits the person whose rights have been violated to file a lawsuit in the case that the law has been broken.

DIFFERENT BETWEEN DAMNUM SINE INJURIA & INJURIA SINE DAMNUM[17]

ON THE BASIS MEANING: Where damnum sine injuria means only damages occur to the other party but at the other side in injuria sine damnum infringement of legal right without actual loss.
ON THE BASIS OF ACTION: In injuria sine damnum you can always have action but in damnum sine injuria there can never be action.
ON THE BASIS OF NATURE IN WRONG: While damnum sine injuria considers solely moral evil without any cure, injuria damnum considers legal wrong where there is a remedy
ON THE BASIS OF ACT OF DEFENDANT: In a case of injuria sine damnum, the defendant acts unlawfully in order to nullify the plaintiff’s legal rights, but in a case of damnum sine injuria, the defendant acts lawfully and so causes harm to the plaintiff

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court may also get involved when a significant legal issue is at stake, but the District Court and High Court have the authority to address the problem to the extent permitted by the various provisions. The Supreme Court heard the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir as an example. Certain tort actions, such as those involving the Motor Vehicle Act and the Consumer Protection Act, are handled differently by special laws.[18]

CONCLUSION

The field of tort law is similar to other legal fields but differs from them in certain aspects. Despite potential divergences in perspectives among legal experts about tort liability, legislation has been established. When a private right is violated under injuria sine Damno, there is no real loss or harm sustained. Every individual has the unalienable right to their person, property, and liberty; yet, an action cannot be upheld in the absence of either Damno or injuria. In India, if a legal right is violated, no proof of damages is required. An offense such as violence, libel, assault, and so on is merely a wrongdoing and is subject to legal action even in the absence of demonstrable harm.

REFERENCES