Difference Between "Damnum Sine Injuria" and "Injuria Sine Damnum"

Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum fall under Law of Torts which are very important to understand. Not only for Lawyers, but also for competitive exam students, this maxim is very important to understand. This is not for the IPC, but falls under torts which will help any plaintiff (person who brings case in court against the other) get the compensation or solution.

Let us first quickly understand the definitions and then will read out the differences.

Damnum sine injuria

It means there is a loss or damage or loss to the plaintiff but no legal damage.

Detailed Explanation

This legal maxim refers to as damages without injury or damages in which there is no infringement of legal right. Since there is no infringement of legal right so no cause of action arises in the cases of damnum sine injuria.

There is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrong unless and until there is any infringement of legal right. The court may not grant any sort of damages even if the act done by the wrong doer is intentional.

Historical Cases

In a landmark case of Gloucester Grammar School (1410) in which a schoolmaster, set-up a rival school to that of the plaintiff and since because of the competition the plaintiff had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per quarter. Thus claimed for compensation from the defendants for the losses suffered. It was held that the plaintiff had no remedy for the losses suffered, since the act though morally wrong has not violated any legal right of the plaintiff.

Injuria Sine Damnum

It means that there is a violation of legal rights of the plentive but without the corresponding loss or damage.

Detailed Explanation

According to this maxim, whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages, although he has suffered no actual harm. In such a case, the person need not prove the actual damage caused to him/her. In simple terms, the maxim refers to the violation of legal rights without damages. As per this maxim, the infringement of certain rights is itself considered as damage and there is no need to prove that actual damage is caused. A person against whom the legal right has been infringed has a cause of action such that even a violation of any legal right knowingly brings the cause of action. The law even gives the liberty that if a person merely has a threat of infringement of a legal right even without the injury being completed, the person whose right has been threatened can bring a suit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act under Declaration and injunction.

Example

If A roams around B’s house without any reason then, there is a violation of the legal right of B and thus, the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum is applicable.

Historical Cases

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary election, while the defendant who was a returning officer in election wrongfully refused to take a vote of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff didn’t suffer any loss by such wrongful act as the candidate, he wanted to vote in the election has won but the legal rights of the plaintiff were infringed and therefore the defendant was held liable.

Differences

Damnum sine injuria	injuria sine damnum
No tort is applicable.	Tort of law is applicable.
No compensation is given	Compensation is given
Not actionable. There is no action taken.	Actionable. Action can be taken.