Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Torts are wrongdoings that are done by one party against another. As a result of the wrongdoing,
the injured person may take civil action against the other party. To simplify this, let's say while
walking down the aisle of a grocery store, you slip on a banana that had fallen from a shelf. You
become the plaintiff, or injured party, and the grocery store is considered the tort feasor or
defendant, the negligent party.
Simply said, you would probably take civil action against the grocery store to recoup
compensation for pain, suffering, medical bills and expenses incurred as a result of the fall.
Negligence is just one tort category. There are three general categories of torts. Regardless of the
tort action, three elements must be present:
Plaintiff must prove that the behavior demonstrated by the tortfeasor did not conform to the duty
owed to the plaintiff.
According to this maxim whenever there is an invasion of a legal right , the person in whom the
right is vested , is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual harm and may
recover damages . It is sufficient to show that there is violation of a legal right and the law will
presume damage . On the strength of this maxim the libel , assault , battery , false imprisonment
and trespass on land or the mere wrongful acts are actionable without proof of special damage .
In India , the same principles have been followed . It is not necessary to show any damage if the
legal right is infringed . Violation of a legal right gives rise to a legal action .
As for example , in an interesting American case of Morningstar Vs. Fafayette Hotel Company,
the plaintiff , who was a guest at the defendant’s hotel , was fed up with the food served at the
hotel , and so , he purchased some spare ribs outside the hotel , and gave them to the hotel chef to
be cooked and brought to his room . This was done . But the spare ribs were accompanied by a
1|Page
bill for one dollar which the plaintiff refused to pay . On the following morning , the plaintiff
was publicly informed at the table of breakfast tha1t he would not be served .
The plaintiff sued for wrongful refusal to serve breakfast to him and the Court held that his
legal right had been infringed .
Ashby v. White
is a leading case explaining the maxim injuria sine damno, in which the plaintiff was wrongfully
prevented from exercising his vote by the defendants, returning officers in parliamentary
election. The candidate from whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out
successful in the election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the
defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of voting in
that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by Lord Holt saying that there was the
infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
Marzetti v. Williams
this case is also known as the banker‘s case. In this case action will lieagainst a banker having
sufficient funds in his hands belonging to a customer, or refusing tohonour his cheque, although
the customer did not thereby sustain any actual loss or damage.
2|Page
8
There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of action to him
who suffers from their effects. Damage so done and suffered is called Damnum Sine Injuria or
damage without injury. Damage without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. They
are instances of damage suffered from justifiable acts. An act or omission committed with lawful
justification or excuse will not be a cause of action though it results in harm to another as a
combination in furtherance of
trade interest or lawful user of one‘s
own premises. Here in the maxim the word damnum means that damage is there in the act but
the word sine injuria means that there is not any violation of legal right.
In Acton v. Blundell
, in which a mill owner drained off underground water running into the
plaintiff‘s well, fully illustrate that no action
liesfrom mere damage,however substantial ,caused without the violation of some right.
2
Dr R K Bangia, Law of Torts,23(2012)
3|Page
Distinction between Injuria sine damnum and Damnum sine injuria
First on the basis of meaning, Injuria sine damunm means violation of a legal right without
actual loss or damages where as Damnum sine injuria means actual or substantial Damages
without infringement of a legal right.
Second on the basis of action, Injuria sine damunm is always actionable where as Damnum sine
injuria is never actionable.
Third on the basis of nature of wrong, Injuria sine damunm contemplates legal wrongs where
there is a remedy where as Damnum sine injuria contemplates only moral wrongs without
any remedy.
Fourth on the basis of act of defehdent, In Injuria sine damunm defendant acts illegally to violate legal
right of the plaintiff where as In Damnum sine injuria defendant acts legally and thereby causes
harm to the plaintiff.
Other elements of tort In certain cases, the following may form part of requirements for a wrong
to be tortuous.
1. Voluntary and involuntary acts: acts and omissions may be voluntary or involuntary.
An involuntary act does not give rise to liability in tort.
2. Mental elements: Plaintiff may be required to show some fault on the part of the
defendant. Fault here means failure to live up to some ideal standard of conduct set by law.
3
http://www.dullb.com/Downloads/Semester1/103%20LAW%20OF%20TORTS_SEMESTER1.pdf
4|Page
that element. The exceptional cases where motive is relevant as an ingredient are torts of
malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process and malicious falsehood.
http://dl4a.org/uploads/pdf/LAW_OF_TORT_S__REVISED%20FOR%20DCM.pdf
5|Page