LEGAL DAMAGE
"Damages," distinct from "damage," refers to the compensation claimed by the injured party and awarded by the courts. In contrast, "damage" is used in the ordinary sense to mean injury, loss, or deprivation of property of some kind.
Thus, damages are awarded by the court to the parties for the damage they have suffered.
The term "injury" is strictly limited to an actionable wrong, while "damage" means loss or harm occurring in fact, whether or not it is actionable as an injury.
To establish tortious liability, the plaintiff must prove that there has been legal damage caused to them, meaning it must be shown that the plaintiff's legal rights were violated by an act or omission, resulting in a breach of legal duty. Therefore, no action in tort shall lie unless there has been a violation of a legal right.
THE TWO MAXIMS
“Injuria sine damnum” and “Damnum sine injuria”.
“Injuria” means infringement of a legal right or an unauthorized interference with the
plaintiff’s legal rights.
“Damnum” means substantial harm, loss or deprivation of property of some kind.
(1) Injuria sine damno (Injury without damages) –
If there has been a violation of a legal right, it is actionable regardless of whether the plaintiff has suffered any loss. Thus, whenever there is an "injuria" or a violation of a legal right without accompanying "damnum" or harm to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can still initiate civil proceedings in a court of law to establish tortious liability. This principle is encapsulated in the maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium," meaning "where there is a right, there is a remedy."
Injuria sine damno applies to torts that are actionable per se, i.e., actionable without proof of any damage or loss.
For example, trespass to land is actionable even if no damage has resulted from the trespass. In such torts, the plaintiff only needs to prove that their legal right has been violated.
This principle is well illustrated in the leading case of Ashby v. White (1703) :
● Facts : The defendants, returning officers, wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from exercising his vote in a parliamentary election. Although the candidate for whom the plaintiff wished to vote was ultimately successful, the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for being maliciously prevented from exercising his statutory right to vote.
● Decision : Lord Holt, C.J. allowed the plaintiff to recover damages, emphasising that the infringement of a legal right is sufficient for an action. He stated: “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”
A similar decision was reached in the Tozer v. Child (1957) 7 E & B 377 case concerning a municipal election.
Another illustrative case is Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, AIR 1986 S.C:
● Facts : The petitioner, an M.L.A. of the J & K assembly, was wrongfully detained by the police while attending an assembly session. He was not produced before a magistrate within the requisite period, depriving him of his constitutional right to attend the session and violating his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
● Decision : The Supreme Court held that there was a violation of a legal right due to the police's mischievous and malicious act, and therefore granted exemplary damages of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiff.
(2) Damnum sine injuria (damage without injury) –
The concept of "damnum sine injuria" refers to damage without infringing the plaintiff’s legal rights. It encompasses acts that, although harmful, are not wrongful and provide no right of action to the affected party. This damage, suffered without any breach of a legal right, does not constitute a tort. Such instances are damages from justifiable acts, i.e., when the exercise of legal rights by one party results in consequential harm to another. Even if the act is intentional, the injured party has no legal claim as long as the other party exercises a legal right.
An act or omission done with lawful justification or excuse will not be a cause of action, even if it harms another. This includes acts in furtherance of trade interests or the lawful use of one’s premises.
Cases Illustrating Damnum Sine Injuria:
1.Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co. (1892 AC 25):
● Facts : Steamship companies aimed to monopolise the China tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight to attract shippers, driving Mogul Steamship Co. out of the trade. Mogul brought an action for conspiracy against the defendants.
● Decision : The House of Lords held that the defendants' actions were justified self-protection and not liable, as they used lawful means to protect and extend their trade.
2.Gloucester Grammar School Master’s Case (1410 YB Hil ii Hen 4f 47 pl. 21):
● Facts : A schoolmaster complained about the opening of a new school causing him loss.
● Decision : The court held that the damage suffered was mere "damnum absque injuria," or damage without injury.
3.Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal (AIR 1975 All 132):
● Facts : Plaintiff sued for compensation after the demolition of his unauthorized constructions protruding on the road.
● Decision : The High Court held that the demolition of an unauthorized building is not injuria to the owner, even if it causes damage (damnum sine injuria).
4.Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir (AIR 1978 Gujarat):
● Facts : Plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the exhibition of a film that allegedly hurt their religious feelings.
● Decision : The court held that hurting religious feelings is not a legal wrong, and no person has a right to enforce religious views on another. Thus, no legal right was violated, and the injunction was denied.
5. Acton v. Blundell (1848) 12 M & W, 324:
● Facts : Defendants dug a coalpit that intercepted water, affecting the plaintiff’s well.
● Decision : Defendants were not liable as the inconvenience to the plaintiff fell under "damnum absque injuria."
6. Chesmore v. Richards (1859) 7 H.C.L. 349:
● Facts : Defendants pumped water affecting the plaintiff’s stream, causing loss.
● Decision: Defendants were not liable as they exercised their rights, and the damage to the plaintiff was "damnum sine injuria."
7. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamnaa (AIR 1958 A.P. 103):
● Facts : Defendants' actions to prevent water flow to their land caused damage to the plaintiff's land.
● Decision: The court held that the defendants were not liable as they had a right to protect their land from flood water (damnum sine injuria).
8. Dickson v. Reuter’s Telegram Co. (1877) 3 C.P.D.
● Facts : Defendants negligently delivered a telegram meant for someone else, causing loss to the plaintiffs.
● Decision : Defendants were not liable as they owed a contractual duty only to the sender of the telegram, not to the recipient.
9. Vishnu Dutt v. Board of H.S. & Intermediate Education, U.P. (AIR 1981 All. 46):
● Facts: The plaintiff, an intermediate student, was wrongfully detained for shortage of attendance, losing a year of education.
● Decision: The court did not allow the claim for compensation as the plaintiff's claim did not fall under the heads of common law, and statutory provisions did not provide for compensation.
10. Mayor of Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895) A.C. 587:
● Facts : The defendant's actions, motivated by malice, caused harm to the plaintiff.
● Decision: The House of Lords held that even malicious harm does not constitute a cause of action unless there is a legal right infringement.
These cases illustrate that damages without infringing on legal rights, even if intentional or malicious, do not provide grounds for legal action.
JOIN US FOR MORE UPDATES:-
WHATSAPP CHANNEL -
https://chat.whatsapp.com/KFqEQu2XzFa8RvSg42N9rM
TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/learnwithsakshi03
Linkedin account -
Instagram -
https://www.instagram.com/_sakshinchaos_?igsh=MTRobXA5eG9jY3AzMw%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
FOR ANY QUERY, EMAIL US ON - hustlinglearning@gmail.com
Post a Comment