Tort Law Basics: Damnum, Injuria, and Remedium

Demystifying Tort Law: Damnum Sine Injuria, Injuria Sine Damno, and Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium Explained

Overview:

Not every act causing damage to another creates a cause of action, accidents frequently occur the consequences of which the sufferer must bear alone. In other words, “injury” in its legal sense, means damage resulting from a wrongful or unlawful act. damage which is occasioned by the doing of a lawful act in the exercise of a legal right, or the doing of a thing authorized by law, in a lawful or authorized manner, is not actionable.

The legal position on the subject of damage is epitomized in three maxims:

Demnum sine injuria 

"Damnum sine injuria" is a legal principle that means "harm without injury." It refers to situations in which someone suffers some kind of loss or damage, but there is no legal wrong or injury involved. In other words, the law does not provide a remedy for the harm suffered because it is not considered to be a legal injury.

You may also read Classification of Torts

Meaning of Maxim Damnum sine injuria

Damnum is meant to damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health, or the like. Injuria means a breach of a legal right, an unauthorized interference, even though slight, with some right conferred by law on the plaintiff. In other words, it means a tortious act and it need not be willful or malicious. The maxim damnum sine injuria means that no action lies for mere damage, however substantial, caused by an act that does not infringe some legal right of the plaintiff. Loss without breach of legal rights gives no cause of action. 

Examples of Maxim Damnum sine injuria

Here are some examples of "damnum sine injuria":

Illustrative case Laws on Maxim Damnum sine injuria

Gloucester v. Grammar

The old case of Gloucester v. Grammar School is an illustration of the maxim damnum sine injuria. In that case, the defendant had set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs with the result that the plaintiffs were required to reduce the tuition fees of their school substantially. It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy.

 Justice Y.B. Hillary, in a decisive statement, declared the defendant not culpable, resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit. The basis for legal action is not compensation alone; rather, it hinges on the infringement or violation of a legal right, even in the presence of monetary loss. The defendant, in establishing his school, adhered to the law, avoiding any transgressions against the plaintiff's school's legal rights. The damages incurred by the plaintiff, attributed to the defendant, did not encroach upon any legal rights of the plaintiff.

This case primarily revolved around business competition between Gloucester Grammar School and the defendant's institution. The establishment and operation of a new school, along with the education of students, fall within the defendant's professional rights and are legitimate according to the law. The defendant's decision to set lower fees was well within his prerogative, and no legal wrongdoing was committed. The mere act of creating a new school and intensifying competition does not constitute a legal transgression. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, absolving him of liability in this matter.

Hankford, J., Remarked as follows:

“Damnum may be injuria, as, If I have a mill and my neighbor puts up another mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.”((1410) YB 11 Henry IV 47 Pl. 21] 

Sheldrake v. State Bank of Victoria (1886)

This case involved a bank that had erected a building on land next to the plaintiff's property, causing the value of the plaintiff's property to decrease. The court held that the bank had not committed a legal wrong because it had a right to build on its own property, even if it caused harm to the plaintiff's property.

Robinson v Kilvert [1889] 41 Ch D 88

In this case, the defendant's tree roots had damaged the plaintiff's sewer pipes. The court held that the defendant had not committed a legal wrong because he had not acted negligently or intentionally to cause the damage.

The claim was dismissed on the grounds of the absence of a nuisance. The factory's conditions were deemed unremarkable, and the claimant's operation within these conditions was lawful. The defendants behaved as reasonable tenants in managing their property. It was demonstrated that the heat generated by the factory would not have harmed standard paper. Instead, the defendant's brown paper happened to be unusually susceptible to heat, causing the damage, rather than any wrongful actions by the defendants. Consequently, the defendants could not be held responsible for causing a nuisance. If one engages in an exceptionally delicate trade, they cannot then complain when their business is adversely affected by the lawful activities of the defendant on their property, especially if such activities would not harm anything except an exceptionally delicate trade.

Broom v. Richie (1905) 6 F 942

In the legal case of Broom v. Richie (1905) 6 F 942, the widow of a warehouseman initiated a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper. The publication claimed that her late husband had a habit of consuming an excessive amount of the drug chloral, ultimately leading to his suicide. The widow contended that the statement was false, defamatory, and unlawfully published, causing significant harm to her feelings and reputation. Additionally, she asserted that the wrongful publication would continue to adversely affect her and her children. The Court determined that casting aspersions on an individual after their death does not grant the right to anyone else to seek damages as if a wrong had been committed against the deceased.

The Court further noted that there might be a legal basis for individuals to sue when a statement directly impacts their status or financial interests.

Do you know Why the Law of Tort has not been Codified?

Injuria sine demno 

"Injuria sine damno" is a legal principle that means "injury without harm." It refers to situations in which someone is legally wronged or injured, but suffers no actual loss or damage. In other words, the person has a legal right to seek a remedy for the injury but has not suffered any tangible harm.

Meaning of Injuria sine demno 

Injuria sine demno is the converse of damnum sine injuria. Just as there are cases in which damage is not actionable as a port (damnum sine injuria), so conversely there are causes in which an act is actionable as a tort although it has caused no damage at all.

In the words of Sir Arthur Underhill, “all that the maxims come to, therefore, is this: that no action lies for mere damage (damnum), however substantial, caused by some act which does not violate a legal right but that an action does lie in certain cases of interference with another’s legal private right, even where it causes no actual damage, e.g., a trespass.

Examples of the maxim Injuria sine demno

Here are some examples of "injuria sine damno":

Illustrative case laws on the maxim Injuria sine demno

Wrotham Park Estate Co. Ltd. v. Parkside Homes Ltd. (1974)

This case involved a landowner who claimed that the defendant had trespassed on their land and caused damage to trees and shrubs. The court faced the task of determining two pivotal aspects. Firstly, whether the restrictive covenant had transferred with the land, rendering it enforceable by the plaintiff. Secondly, if enforceable, whether the plaintiff could claim damages due to the construction on the land. The court needed to scrutinize the nature of the prohibition on the land and ascertain whether the benefit of the covenant could be identified.

The court ruled that the covenant could be enforced, given its clear definition and registration with the land. However, demolishing the already-developed roads and houses would be impractical and unjust. Consequently, the court ordered the grant of damages. Concerning the measurement of damages, the court determined that the amount should reasonably reflect the relaxation of the covenant.

 The court held that the landowner had suffered an injury to their property rights, even though they had not suffered any tangible harm or financial loss.

Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. National Bank of Abu Dhabi (2015)

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached a contract and caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. 

The court held that the plaintiff had suffered an injury to their reputation, even though they had not suffered any tangible harm or financial loss.

Khorasandjian v. Bush (1993)

A young lady, the claimant, endured persistent harassment through threatening phone calls from a man. Seeking an injunction to halt this nuisance, the defendant argued she lacked a property interest in the affected land, referring to Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that legal protection against deliberate harassment is not contingent on proprietary interest in the premises. Citing Dyson Holdings Ltd v Fox [1976] 1 Q.B. 503, the ruling affirmed that a child living with her parents is entitled to relief, aligning with the precedent where a wife obtained relief despite lacking proprietary interest.

The court held that the plaintiff had suffered an injury, even though they had not suffered any tangible harm or financial loss.

R. v. Jones (2002)

In this case, the defendant was convicted of criminal damage for shining a laser pointer at an aircraft, even though no actual damage was caused to the aircraft. The court held that the defendant had committed an injury by interfering with the pilot's ability to safely operate the aircraft.

(Municipal Board of Agra Vs. Ashraf Latif)

The plaintiff, who was entitled to be upon the electoral roll, was wrongfully omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote. It was held that the plaintiff suffered a legal wrong for which an action lay. 

(Marzetti Bank Vs. Williams)

The defendant, a banker, had sufficient funds in his hands belonging to the plaintiff but refuses to honor the latter’s cheque. It was held that there was a violation of a legal right and, therefore, an action lay, although the customer, the plaintiff, did not thereby sustain any actual damage.

(Cole Vs. Green)

The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant made material alterations without the plaintiff’s consent. It was held that the defendant was liable though the alterations tended to improve the premises. 

Ubi jus ibi remedium

The cases in which an action is competent even in the absence of damage are those in which there is a violation of an absolute private right. In such cases, a wrong is deemed to have been done to the plaintiff by the mere infringement of that right for which there is a remedy by action: ubi jus ibi remedium. In this class of cases, the law presumes damage although no actual loss is proved. Thus in an action for trespass, the plaintiff need not show that he has suffered any specific damage as a result of the trespass for it is actionable without proof of loss. The well-known cases of tort belonging to this class are trespass to person (including assault), trespass to lands or goods, conversion, libel, and those cases of slander that are actionable per se. 

Meaning of the Maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium

Ubi jus ibi remedium" is a legal principle that means "where there is a right, there is a remedy." It refers to the idea that if someone has a legal right that has been violated, they should have a legal remedy available to them to seek compensation or justice.

Examples of the Maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium

Here are some examples of situations where "ubi jus ibi remedium" might apply:

Illustrative case laws on the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium

Ashby v. White (1703)

This case involved a voter who was denied the right to vote in an election and claimed that his right to vote had been infringed. The court held that the voter had a legal right to vote and was entitled to a legal remedy, which in this case was an injunction preventing the election from proceeding.

Foskett v. McKeown (2001)

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached a contract by failing to pay for goods that had been delivered. The court held that the plaintiff had a legal right to payment under the contract and was entitled to a legal remedy, which in this case was an award of damages.

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)

This case involved a challenge to the legality of detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The court held that the plaintiffs had a legal right to liberty and were entitled to a legal remedy, which in this case was a declaration that their detention was unlawful.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached a duty of care by selling a ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail, which caused the plaintiff to become ill. The court held that the plaintiff had a legal right to be protected from injury caused by the defendant's negligence and was entitled to a legal remedy, which in this case was an award of damages.

You may also read the Essential elements of the law of Tort

Conclusion:

The legal principles of "damnum sine injuria," "injuria sine damno," and "ubi jus ibi remedium" are all related to the law of torts, which is the branch of law that deals with civil wrongs or injuries. These principles serve as a foundation for the law of torts by providing a framework for determining when a legal injury has occurred and what remedies are available to those who have suffered such injuries.

"Damnum sine injuria" and "injuria sine damno" are often used to distinguish between situations in which a legal injury has occurred and those in which it has not. "Damnum sine injuria" refers to situations in which someone suffers harm, but there is no legal injury, while "injuria sine damno" refers to situations in which there is a legal injury, but no actual harm.

"Ubi jus ibi remedium," on the other hand, is a principle that emphasizes the availability of remedies for those who have suffered legal injuries. It holds that if someone has a legal right that has been violated, they should have a legal remedy available to them to seek compensation or justice.

In conclusion, these principles play a key role in the law of torts by helping to define what constitutes a legal injury and what remedies are available to those who have suffered such injuries.