Maxim refers to well-known principles and prepositions. That is the general set of rules, principles, or guidelines that must be followed by the general public. Maxims are fairly useful because they allow a specific point of law to be understood concisely and clearly, as well as used for proper case resolution. Maxims are commonly used in various branches of law, including tort law.
Damnum Sine Injuria
The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.
Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.
In the case, Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. McGregor Gow and Co., several companies involved in the trading of steamships, joined forces intending to drive the plaintiff's company out of the tea-carrying company by reducing and helping at a reduced price. It was held that the plaintiff has no cause of action because the other companies have infringed on no legal rights.
In the case, Gloucester Grammar School Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees from to pence per scholar from 40 pence per scholar. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.
Injuria Sine Damnum
Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim that means that the plaintiff suffered no physical injury or damage as a result of injury, loss, or damage. It is a Latin term in which ‘Injuria' means injury, ‘sine' means without and ‘damnum' means property and any other physical loss, the word refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss.'
In this case, the plaintiff does not have to prove the damages he has suffered; he only has to prove that he has suffered some legal damage and that the action he has brought is actionable per se. For example, if X roams around Y's house without reasoning, there is a violation of Y's legal right, and thus this maxim applies.
In the case of Injuria Sine Damnum, the loss suffered is not physical, but rather due to a violation of a legal right. As a result, the damages received by the aggrieved party are the result of some kind of loss, and the amount for damages is determined solely to compensate the victim. However, where a legal right is violated due to a malicious and malicious act, the number of damages set can be raised, as in the case of Bhim Singh vs. the State of J&K.
The petitioner in the case of Bhim Singh vs. the State of J&K was a member of the J&K parliamentary assembly. While on his way to the assembly session, he was wrongfully arrested by police. He was not even brought before the magistrate within the specified time. As a result, the individual was wrongfully denied his legal right to attend the meeting, and his fundamental right, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, was also violated. The respondent was found to be at fault, and the petitioner was granted Rs. 50,000 from the defendant as compensation.
In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.
Injuria Sine Damnum refers to legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any physical injury, whereas Damnum Sine Injuria refers to a physical injury suffered by the plaintiff, but no damage is caused to the legal rights as there is no violation of them. Another distinction is that the of actionable in law, so Injuria Sine Damnum is actionable per se because there is a violation of legal right, whereas the other is not because no legal right is violated.
The main goal of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that no ground of action or cause of action exists for a person who acts within reasonable limits even if the other person suffers losses as a result, whereas the main goal of the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum is that if a person's legal right is violated, a cause of action arises and the person whose legal right has been infringed suffers losses. In these cases, a qualified right, as opposed to absolute rights, has been violated.
The two maxims conclude that one is a moral wrong for which the law provides no remedy even if it causes great loss or detriment to the plaintiff, whereas the other is a legal wrong for which the law provides a legal remedy even if there is a violation of a private right without actual loss or detriment in that particular case.