Legal Maxims

The maxim “Injuria Sine Damno Damnum Sine Injuria” can be studies in three parts: (i) Damnum means harm or loss made to a party; (ii) Injuria means infringement of rights of the plaintiff; (iii) Sine means without.

The term Damnum Sine Injuria means damage caused without any infringement in right. Damages here refer to any monetary or any other kind of loss to the plaintiff. Associated with the law of torts, this maxim, however, does not evoke any legal action, since there is no legal right which is violated. This term basically says that law is only responsible for legally wrong actions, no matter how wrong the actions are morally. This maxim assumes that the actions done by the defendant which caused harm to the plaintiff are done within the rights of the defendant.

Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles

In this case, the plaintiff company filed a suit against the defendants alleging that the well that the defendants had dug had resulted in a loss of underground water supply to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus demanded a compensation for the losses incurred by the corporation, since they were unable to supply water to the people who lived within the jurisdiction of the corporation.

The term Injuria Sine Damno means causing a violation of the plaintiff’s rights without causing any damage, whether monetary or not. In this case, the plaintiff is entitled to certain damage compensation since their legal rights which were guaranteed by the state has been infringed. The State guarantees every person protection to his property, his person and his liberty. If any of these is violated, a legal action can be demanded. The aim of this maxim is to protect the rights of the people.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Bhim Singh, MLA, Jammu & Kashmir, was arrested by the police while he was on his way to the legislative assembly in order to attend the session for that day. He was kept in police custody for 4 days without being presented before the magistrate. Due to his absence, he was unable to contest in the voting that occurred that day in the legislative assembly. Although, the person whom he wanted to vote for had won, he was compensated for the infringement in personal liberties that has occurred. The Court held that Mr. Bhim Singh would be compensated for ₹ 50,000 for the legal injuries caused to him.