[12] www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/civil-rights/ashby-v-white/ Injuria sine damno means harm without causing prejudice to the applicant. In order to prove that an action was successful, it is not necessary to prove that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of an act; The only thing that has to be proven is that there has been a violation of the plaintiff`s right, that is, damage. In short, the term « infringement » refers to an impairment of the legally protected interest of the applicant. The word sinus means absent or absent. In middle school, the term damnum refers to physical losses, whether monetary, psychological or medical. This is a landmark case on Injuria sine damnum. On the facts of the present case, the applicant, who was qualified, was prevented by the defendant from exercising his statutory right of choice. The court recognized that the inability of a legitimate voter to participate in the electoral process constituted a violation of his statutory right, so that the plaintiff was awarded symbolic damages even though he had not suffered any physical or material harm. Moghul Steamship Company V. McGregor Gow & Co., a number of steamship companies that traded in combination, agreed to regulate freight and freight charges between China and Europe. All suppliers who shipped with association members got a general discount of 5%.
As a result of this action, the plaintiffs had to reduce their rates to a level free of charge for them. « There was no cause of action because the defendants had acted by legal means to increase their trade and profits. No legal damage was caused and the case fell under the maxim damnum sine injuria. In Ashby v. White, the plaintiff was an elector in a general election, while the defendant, who was the returning officer, wrongly refused to accept a vote from the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff did not suffer any harm as a result of such an illegal act, the candidate, if he wanted to participate in the election, won, but the plaintiff`s legal rights were violated and the defendant was therefore held liable. In this case, it was concluded that the harm was inflicted on the plaintiff morally, but from a legal perspective, so that no legal prejudice was inflicted on the plaintiff who follows the general principle of the maxim « damnum sine injuria », according to which no remedy for moral injustice is awarded unless his legal rights are violated. Judge Hanker said: « Damnum can be abse insult as if I had a mill and my neighbour built another mill, thus reducing the profit of my mill. but if a miller prevents the water from going to my mill, or harasses anything of that kind, I will take the measures prescribed by law. In V.
Blundell`s claim, while digging a coal mine, the defendants intercepted water that affected the plaintiff`s less than 20-year-old well at a distance of approximately one mile. They were not held accountable. It has been observed: « He who possesses the surface may dig and use all that is there freely and for his own purposes, and that in exercising these rights he intercepts or drains the water collected in the underground springs in the well of the neighbor, this inconvenience to his neighbor falls under the description damnum sine injuria, which cannot become the reason for action. Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim that refers to damage without damage or damage in which there is no breach of a legal claim to which the plaintiff is entitled. As no legal action has been violated, no action may be brought in cases of damnum sine injuria. The general principle on which this maxim is based is that when one exercises one`s general or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits and without violating the rights of others; This exercise may not result in a tort for the benefit of that other person. Damage can take any form, whether in the form of significant damage or losses suffered in terms of money, comfort, health, etc. In a case similar to (Ashby v. White), in Ashrafilal v. Municipal Corporation of Agra, « the complainant`s name was removed by the authorities concerned (election officers) and removed from the voters list, preventing the complainant from exercising his right to vote.
The plaintiff sued the Municipal Corporation of Agra for violation of his fundamental right. The court held the Agra Municipal Corporation liable because the plaintiff`s right to choose had been violated and the plaintiff had been awarded compensation. The conclusion of the two maxims is such that one is a moral injustice for which the law does not provide for reparation, although they cause significant loss or disadvantage to the plaintiff, but on the other hand is a legal wrong, for which the law grants a remedy, although a private right is violated. without actual loss or disadvantage in the specific case. Chesmore V. Richards, the plaintiff, owner of a plant, used water from a watercourse fed primarily by seepage groundwater for more than 60 years. The defendants dug a well on their land deep enough to prevent the greatest amount of water from flowing into the plaintiff`s creek. The applicant has no right of action, since this is a case of damnum sine injuria. As in Ashby v. White (1703), where the plaintiff was entitled to vote in parliamentary elections held at that time.
The respondent, an election official, wrongly refused to allow the applicant to vote. The plaintiff was not prejudiced because the candidate he wanted to vote for had already won the election, but the defendants were nevertheless held liable. It has been concluded that damage is not only financial loss, but that damage constitutes damage, so that if a person is hindered in his rights, he is entitled to compensation. These two maxims – Injuria sine Damnum and Damnum sine Injuria – are used by common law courts to distinguish moral injustice from legal wrong. The gravest moral injustice, even with the most malicious intent, cannot be corrected by a remedy if there is no violation. On the other hand, even without bodily injury, the slightest infringement must be remedied by means of a judicial remedy. […] However, tort law does not hold the defendant liable for damages that the plaintiff may suffer as a result of the defendant`s act. The damage must be caused by the breach of a legal obligation of the defendant towards the plaintiff (damnum sine injuria et injuria sine damnum). […] These damages are awarded by the courts if they find that the plaintiff`s legal right has been violated, but he did not appear in court with clean hands.
The complainant is wrong if his legal right has been violated. In this case, the court awards damages in recognition of the plaintiff`s statutory right, although the amount of damages is significantly reduced because of the plaintiff`s wrongs. The small amount awarded to the plaintiff is intended to demonstrate contempt of court for the plaintiff`s fundamental act. For a better understanding of the two maxims, the following case law is provided: This Latin term can be understood as damage without injury. In this maxim, the word injuria means counterfeit. As a recognized principle of tort law in India, non-infringement damages are not enforceable in court.