Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damno — The Two Maxims

The whole of tort law turns on one distinction — the difference between loss and legal injury. Suffering a loss is not enough; a legal right must be violated.

The Two Maxims

flowchart TD
    A["Loss vs Legal Injury"]:::root
    A --> B["Damnum sine injuria<br/>loss WITHOUT violation of<br/>a legal right — NO remedy"]:::no
    A --> C["Injuria sine damno<br/>violation of a legal right<br/>WITHOUT loss — REMEDY"]:::yes

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef no fill:#FFE6E6,stroke:#8A1E1E,color:#000;
    classDef yes fill:#E6FFE6,stroke:#1E8A3A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Damnum Sine Injuria — “damage without legal injury”

Real loss, but no legal right violated, gives no action.

Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) — a rival schoolmaster who opened next door and ruined the old school’s business was not liable; lawful competition is no tort.
Mogul Steamship v. McGregor (1892) — shippers who combined to undercut a rival out of the market caused loss but no legal injury.

Injuria Sine Damno — “legal injury without damage”

A legal right is violated even though no loss follows, and it is actionable (the right itself is protected).

Ashby v. White (1703) — a returning officer who wrongfully refused a qualified voter’s vote was liable, though the candidate still won.
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) — an MLA wrongfully detained and not produced before a magistrate recovered exemplary damages for the breach of his legal right.

These are the two sides of ubi jus ibi remedium — the law protects rights, not mere interests, and it protects them even when no measurable loss is proved.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: Out of pure spite, X digs a well on his own land, drawing away the underground percolating water that fed his neighbour Y’s well, which dries up. Can Y sue X?

I — Issue

Whether interfering with a neighbour’s supply of underground percolating water, even maliciously, is an actionable tort.

R — Rule

Damnum sine injuria — mere loss, without violation of a legal right, gives no remedy. There is no natural right to underground percolating water; a landowner may lawfully draw it off. Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895) — an act lawful in itself does not become actionable merely because done with a bad motive; Chasemore v. Richards is to the same effect.

A — Analysis

Y has suffered real loss — his well is dry. But loss alone is not enough; he must show a legal right was infringed. He has no right to the percolating water beneath X’s land, and X was entitled to dig on his own land. The decoy is X’s evil motive, but spite cannot convert a lawful act into a tort (Bradford v. Pickles). This is a textbook damnum sine injuria.

C — Conclusion

Y cannot sue X. Drawing off underground percolating water by digging on one’s own land is lawful, and a malicious motive does not make it actionable — damnum sine injuria.

📄 Get all 5 units — Notes + Question Bank (₹199) with 50+ solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Buy the bundle · Free Unit 1 sample · All Law of Torts topics