Damnum sine injuria is a Latin legal maxim meaning "damage without legal injury." It refers to situations where a person suffers a loss, but there is no violation of their legal rights and therefore, no legal remedy is available. For instance, if a business loses customers to a competitor offering better services, the losses are real but not legally actionable. The principle highlights that not all losses are compensable, only those resulting from a violation of legal rights. Explore other important judiciary notes.

Damnum Sine Injuria Introduction

The principle of Damnum sine Injuria in tort law differentiates between situations where harm or loss has occurred but does not warrant a valid tort claim due to the absence of a legal right violation. Fundamentally, Damnum sine Injuria acts as a criteria to examine whether the essential elements of a tort are met. In order to claim a tort, the Plaintiff must show not only that harm (damnum) has been suffered but also that a legal right (injuria) has been infringed.

If the Plaintiff experiences harm that is merely incidental and does not originate from an unlawful act infringing their legal rights, it comes under Damnum sine Injuria which means that no actionable tort arises. The principle ensures that tort claims are based on valid legal wrongs rather than trivial inconveniences or losses.

Download Free Damnum Sine Injuria PDF

The following are some of the examples where harm occurs without a corresponding legal injury demonstrating the principle of Damnum sine Injuria:

• Fair Market Competition: When a new business enters the market and attracts customers from existing businesses, leading to a decrease in their profits, it causes harm financially. However, as long as the competition is fair, just and legal without any unfair trade practices, the losses suffered by the existing businesses comes under Damnum sine Injuria.
• Price Reduction Strategy: If a retailer lowers its prices which results in nearby competitors losing their customers and revenue, the financial setback for those competitors is important. However, provided that the price reduction is lawful and not fall within an anti-competitive scheme, such losses is said to be as Damnum sine Injuria.
• Employee Transition: When an employee resigns from one company and joins a competitor, bringing along some clients or customers, the former employer may experience financial setbacks. However, unless the employee breaches a non-compete agreement or violates confidentiality obligations, this situation typically falls under Damnum sine Injuria.

Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum

The maxims Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum highlight the difference between the violation of legal rights and actual harm or damage suffered. The following table outlines the differences between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum:

Damnum Sine Injuria Case Law

Damnum sine injuria refers to a situation where a person suffers harm or loss, but no legal right is violated, and thus, no legal remedy is available. The following are some of the landmark judgements related to this principle -

Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. vs. McGregor, Gow & Co.

In Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. vs. McGregor, Gow & Co., the plaintiff, an independent ship-owner, faced financial losses when four competing ship-owners formed an association and offered special concessions to attract customers. The plaintiff sued for compensation, alleging unfair competition.

The main legal principle in this case was Damnum Sine Injuria, meaning mere financial harm without a violation of legal rights does not constitute a valid tort claim. Despite the defendants’ intent to harm competition, their actions were lawful and aimed at business expansion. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that no unlawful act was committed, as there was no trespass, violence, or legal infringement. While the plaintiff suffered economic harm, no legal injury was proven, and the court upheld that competition alone does not warrant legal action unless it involves a rights violation.

Gloucester Grammar School Case (1441)

In Gloucester Grammar School case, the Plaintiff managed a school but a rival school set up by the defendant led to a decline in student enrollment at the plaintiff’s institution. As a result, the plaintiff had to lower tuition fees significantly, causing financial loss. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff had no legal claim since genuine competition, even if financially damaging, does not provide grounds for legal action. Justice Hankford noted that harm (damnum) can exist without legal injury (injuria), illustrating this with an example of a mill losing business due to a competitor’s establishment.

Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles (1895)

In Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles the defendant, displeased by the Bradford Corporation’s refusal to purchase his land for a water supply project, deliberately excavated a shaft on his property, reducing and discoloring underground water flowing to the plaintiff’s land. The corporation sued, alleging malicious intent. However, the court dismissed the claim, holding that the defendant acted within his legal rights. Lord MacNaghten emphasized that legal liability is determined by the act itself, not the motive. Since the defendant’s actions, although harmful, were lawful, no legal injury occurred.

Anand Singh v. Ramachandra (1953)

The defendant in Anand Singh v. Ramachandra constructed two pucca walls on his land, leading to water flow through a lane between his and the plaintiff’s houses, damaging the latter’s walls. The plaintiff sued for damages. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the defendant’s actions did not violate any legal rights, making the claim invalid. Since the act was lawful, despite causing harm, the court ruled it as an instance of damnum sine injuria, where financial or physical loss does not justify legal action unless there is an infringement of rights.

Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir

In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir the plaintiffs sought to prevent the screening of a film, claiming it mocked their religious beliefs. The court ruled that offending religious sentiments is not a legally recognized wrong and denied the injunction, as the defendants were engaging in a lawful activity.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a legal doctrine meaning harm without a legal violation. It applies to cases where a person suffers damage, but no legal rights are infringed, preventing any legal action. This principle asserts that as long as an individual lawfully exercises their rights without violating another’s legal entitlements, the resulting harm does not create grounds for a legal claim. To know more about Damnum sine Injuria -

Download Key take aways on Damnum sine injuria PDF