Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to harm experienced by the plaintiff but not involving any violation of a person’s legal rights. In such cases, when there is no infringement of a legal right yet the plaintiff suffers loss or damage, the plaintiff is unable to file an action against the other because it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.
This maxim is founded on the fundamental concept that using one’s common or ordinary rights within reasonable limitations and without infringing on another’s legal rights does not give rise to a tort action in favor of that other person. Damages might take the shape of any considerable injury or loss incurred in terms of money, comfort, health, or other factors.
Damnum Sine Injuria The literal definition of the phrase “sine injuria” is “loss or damage in terms of money, property, or other physical loss that occurs without the breach of any legal right.” Even if the conduct was done with the aim of causing harm to others but without infringing on the person’s legal rights, it is not actionable in law.
There are no remedies for any moral wrongs until and until a legal right has been breached, which is an implicit premise in law. Even if the defendant’s act or omission was deliberate, the Court will not award the plaintiff any damages. As in the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895), the corporation of Bradford filed a suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s act of digging a well on adjoining land owned by the defendant had cut the underground supply of water in the corporation’s well, causing them monetary losses because there was no adequate supply of water to discharge feces.
Ushaben vs. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
In this case, the plaintiff requested that a permanent injunction be issued against the film “Jai Santoshi Maa” before a court of law. According to her, the plaintiff’s religious sensibilities were injured by the film. It was discovered that injuring religious sensibilities did not result in any legal consequences and that no one’s feelings were harmed other than the plaintiff’s. As a result, the defendant was found not guilty.
In another instance, Gloucester Grammar School (1410), a schoolmaster established a competitor school to the plaintiff’s, and the plaintiff had to cut their rates from 40 pence to 12 pence each quarter as a result of the rivalry. As a result, the plaintiff sought reimbursement from the defendants for the damages he had experienced. The plaintiff was found to have no recourse for the losses incurred since the act, while morally reprehensible, did not breach any of the plaintiff’s legal rights.
In instances where a legal right has been infringed, the court presumes that damages must be given; but, in cases where no legal right has been infringed, the maxim Damnum sine Injuria applies, and no remedies are available. So, an act that is properly or legally done, without carelessness, and in the exercise of a legal right, such damages as happening to another, as a result, can be considered to be harm without injury.
The basic goal of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that a person acting within reasonable limitations has no base of action or cause of action, even if the other person suffers losses as a result of that activity.
There is an unspoken legal concept that there are no remedies for any moral violation unless and until a legal right is violated. Even though the wrongdoer’s act was intentional, the court may refuse to award any damages.