1.
Winsmore v. Green Park, 1745 Wills 577 (581).
Damnum-damage in terms of substantial loss of money, comfort, health, service etc. as it was observed in the case.
Injuria-it means a breach of legal right or infringement of legal right. But it should not be wilful or malicious. When the breach or infringement of legal right is tortious then only the question of action arises. If, the law has conferred some right on a person and it has come across some unauthorized interference then it is termed as injury.
No action lies for damage or loss, even when it is substantial in nature but has been caused by an act which does not breach/infringe some legal right of the plaintiff. The maxim damnum sine injuria has thus a meaning which says - damage/loss without breach or infringement of legal right.
We can understand this maxim with the help of following cases:
In this case, plaintiff was running a school, defendant had also set up a school for children. Plaintiffs had to reduce the tuition fees for children by a substantial margin since children of plaintiff's school were running away and joining the defendant's school. It was held that even though the plaintiff has suffered substantial loss due to rival school but plaintiffs had no cause of action against the defendant on the ground that bona fide competition cannot afford ground for action, whatever damage it has caused to plaintiff.
Justice Hankford delivering the verdict remarked as 'damnum' may be (obsque) injuria, as, if I have a mill and my neighbour puts up another mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged'.
In this case, the defendant was unhappy when the Bradford Corporation refused to purchase his land in connection with the scheme of water supply for the inhabitants of the town. With a vengeance, the defendant sank a shaft on his land resulting in diminishing underground water which also turned discoloured flowing to the land of plaintiff.
The plaintiff i.e. corporation brought a suit against the defendant that the conduct of later is of evil design, and it was unlawful. But, the contention of the plaintiff was rejected on the ground that the act of defendant upon his own land was not actionable when he was very much within his legal rights, although his motive was to prejudice his neighbour. Lord MacNaghten stated that "the real answer to the claim of the corporation is, that in such a case motives are immaterial. It is the act, not the motive for the act, that must be regarded. If the act, apart from motive, gives rise merely to damage without legal injury, the motive, however reprehensible it may be, will not supply that element."
Here, A, B, C & D, defendants were the shipowners, who were in trade of shipment of tea from China to England offered special concession to customers to oust their rival E from the business. E in this circumstances suffered loss and sued A, B, C & D that they have conspired against his business.
The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that defendants had done nothing unlawful. The House of Lords observed that the defendants have done so to extend their trade to increase their profits, although with the intention of injuring plaintiff.
The plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the damage they had suffered by the defendant's acts.-"The defendants have done nothing more against the plaintiffs than pursue to the bitter end a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade. Nor there is any element of illegality in the fact of combination among the defendants, as long as it was for the purpose of trade and competition."
The decision in this case establishes the principle that with deliberate infliction of harm affords no ground of action, unless it is done unlawfully.
In this case, the defendant built two pucca walls on his land resulting in flow of water through a lane in between plaintiff's and defendant's house. It damaged the walls of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant and requested the court that he should be given Rs. 100 as damages by defendant. It was the observation of Madhya Pradesh High Court that the defendant by constructing the walls had not violated any right of the plaintiff hence no cause of action lies against the defendant. So, plaintiff is not entitled to restrain the defendant from constructing walls on his land. It is a case of damnum sine injuria .....a case where damage or loss is inflicted without the act being unlawful. It is an act though harmful to the plaintiff is not wrongful on the part of the defendant, and no right of action accrues to the plaintiff.
This maxim is just opposite of maxim Damnum sine injuria. It means there is breach or infringement of private legal right but no damage has been done. We can say here also as whenever there is an infringement of private legal right, the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages, although there may not be any real/actual loss or harm suffered by him.
Here, the plaintiff was a genuine voter who had gone to cast his vote but the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to register his vote. Although the candidate won the election to whom vote was to be given so it made no difference when the plaintiff didn't vote. When the matter came to the court, it awarded plaintiff œ 5 (with costs) on the ground that there was the violation of the plaintiff's legal right was an injury for which he must have a remedy and was actionable without proof of pecuniary damage.
In this case, while delivering the judgment Lord Chief Justice Holt laid down three prepositions in favour of plaintiff as follows:
"(a) That the plaintiff, as burgess of this borough, hath a legal right to give his vote for the parliamentary election,
(b) That as a necessary consequence thereof, and an incident inseparable to that right, he must have a legal remedy to assert, vindicate and maintain it, and
(c) This is the proper remedy which plaintiff hath presumed, being supported by the grounds, reasons and principles of common laws of England".
The Chief Justice Holt further held-
"Every injury imports a damage though it does not cost the party one farthing. For a damage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby hindered of his right so, if a man gives another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing, not so much as a little plaster yet he shall have his action, for it is personal injury. So, a man shall have an action against another for riding over his ground, though it does him no damage for it is invasion on his property."
In this case, both the plaintiff as well as defendant were proprietors of opposite banks of a water channel. The defendant had built a wall on his own land for protection. But, the plaintiff sued defendant for an injunction for demolition of a wall. The Calcutta High Court was of the view that the contention of plaintiff was justified that the encroachment might damage thereafter. But this decision was reversed by the Privy Council on the ground, that the water channel bed did not belong to the plaintiff but to the government, the plaintiff had neither claimed nor proved that he was entitled to the flow of the water as it had been accustomed to flow or that flow was seriously and sensibly diverted as to be an injury to his rights, he had failed to show either damnum or injuria hence the question does not arise for any action. Their Lordships further held, "There may be, where a right is interfered with injuria sine damno is sufficient for an action; but no action can be maintained where there is neither damnum nor injuria".
We can conclude this chapter with this observation that there may be certain moral wrongs, which may cause damage to others but here law offers no legal remedy; and on the contrary, there are certain legal wrongs which may not cause any loss or damage to another person, but the law provides a legal remedy although there is mere a violation of private legal right.
-----
© Universal law Publishing Co.