Wrongful Act and Legal Damage | Law of Torts Notes

In one minute

A tort needs a wrongful act and legal damage. Legal damage means the violation of a legal right. Plain loss is not enough, and a violated right can be enough even when no loss follows.

Two Latin maxims mark the line. Damnum sine injuria is loss without a violated right, and there is no claim. Injuria sine damno is a violated right without loss, and the claim succeeds. In exams, expect these maxims, the cases, and a question on damages and remoteness.

Exam focus

Frequency: Occasionally asked
Usually asked as: Both (long answer and short answer)

Legal provision

No Indian statute states the rule. The two maxims and the rules of damages come from decided cases.
Section 2(m), Limitation Act, 1963: a tort is a civil wrong not exclusively a breach of contract or trust. A wrong needs a violated right to be a civil wrong.
Articles 21, 32 and 226, Constitution of India: money compensation for violation of fundamental rights is a public law remedy. It sits beside the tort claim for damages.

Meaning and definition

A wrongful act is conduct that breaks a duty the law imposes. It may be an act, an omission or words, and it may be intended, careless or without fault where the law makes liability strict.

Damage in everyday speech is any loss. Legal damage is the violation of a legal right. The two do not always go together.

Damnum sine injuria: damage without legal injury. A real loss occurs, but no legal right is violated. No action lies.
Injuria sine damno: legal injury without damage. A legal right is violated but no loss follows. The action lies.

Damages (with an s) are the money the court awards when the claim succeeds. Damage and damages are different words with different meanings.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: the wrongful act

The defendant's conduct must be wrongful in law. A moral wrong or an unkind act is not enough. A lawful act does not become wrongful because of a bad motive. The court looks at the act, not the motive.

Example. The municipality of a Telangana town lawfully demolishes a shop built without sanction. The owner says the officer acted out of spite. The demolition is lawful, so the officer's bad motive does not make it a tort.

Step 2: damnum sine injuria, loss without legal injury

Many losses are not actionable. No one has a legal right to be free from fair competition or from the lawful use by a neighbour of his own land. The loss is real, but the law gives no remedy because no right was violated.

Fair competition causes loss, but a trader has no legal right to keep his customers.
A landowner may draw off underground water that seeps through his land in no defined channel, even if a neighbour's well dries up.
A landowner may protect his land from flood by reasonable means, even if the water goes to a neighbour's land.
A person may lawfully demolish an unauthorised building, whatever his motive.

Example. Anand opens a large supermarket opposite Bhaskar's small grocery shop in Guntur and sells at lower prices. Bhaskar's sales fall by half. Bhaskar has no claim. The loss is real but no legal right of his was violated.

The maxim de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) works in the same area. Harm too slight to matter gives no claim.

Step 3: injuria sine damno, legal injury without damage

Some rights are so basic that their violation is actionable even if no loss follows. Such torts are actionable per se. The court presumes damage. If the plaintiff proves no actual loss, he usually receives nominal damages.

Trespass to land is actionable per se, even if the trespasser does no harm.
Assault, battery and false imprisonment are actionable per se.
Libel (written defamation) is actionable per se.
Denial of a legal right, such as the right to vote, is actionable.

Example. A neighbour walks across Kavita's empty plot in Warangal every day as a shortcut. He damages nothing. Kavita can still sue for trespass and obtain nominal damages and an injunction, because her right to exclusive possession was violated.

Other torts need proof of actual loss, called special damage. Negligence is one. English law also required it for slander except in certain classes. The note on defamation covers the position for slander.

Step 4: damages, the remedy

Damages are the money awarded for a tort. They are unliquidated, so the court fixes the amount. The main kinds are:

Nominal damages. A token sum, awarded where a right is violated but no loss is proved.
Contemptuous damages. The smallest coin, awarded when the claim is technically right but the court thinks it worthless.
Ordinary (substantial) damages. Real compensation for proved loss. These are general damages for loss the law presumes, such as pain and suffering, and special damages for loss that must be proved, such as medical bills.
Aggravated damages. Extra compensation for injury to feelings when the defendant behaves in a high-handed way.
Exemplary damages. Damages meant to punish and deter, awarded in exceptional cases such as oppressive action by government servants. In England, Rookes v. Barnard (1964) limited them to defined classes.

Step 5: how damages are assessed

Restitutio in integrum. The court tries to put the plaintiff, so far as money can, in the position he would have been in without the tort.
General and special damages. Special damages must be pleaded and proved item by item. General damages need only be shown to be reasonable.
Once and for all. Damages for one cause of action are awarded together for past and future loss, and the claim cannot be reopened.
Duty to mitigate. The plaintiff must take reasonable steps to reduce his loss. He cannot recover for loss he could have avoided.

Step 6: remoteness of damage

The defendant is not liable for every consequence of his wrong. The law draws a line at remoteness of damage.

Directness test. In Re Polemis (1921), the defendant was liable for all direct consequences, even if unforeseeable.
Reasonable foresight test. In The Wagon Mound No. 1 (1961), the Privy Council overruled Re Polemis. The defendant is liable only for damage of a kind a reasonable person could foresee.
Thin skull (eggshell skull) rule. If the kind of damage was foreseeable, the defendant is liable for its full extent, even if the victim was unusually frail. Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. (1962) applied this rule.

Example. A careless driver in Vijayawada bumps a pedestrian. The pedestrian has a rare bone disease and suffers a far worse injury than usual. The driver must pay for the full injury, because some injury was foreseeable.

Can the plaintiff sue for this harm?How to read this: go down the boxes in order. A "No" answer sends you to the result beside the box.

1. Did the defendant do a wrongful act, one that breaks a duty fixed by law?
No: no tort, whatever the loss. A lawful act with a bad motive is not enough.
2. Was a legal right of the plaintiff violated?
No: damnum sine injuria. Loss without legal injury gives no claim.
3. Is the tort actionable per se?
No: the plaintiff must also prove actual (special) damage, as in negligence.
4. Is the harm of a kind the defendant could reasonably foresee?
No: too remote. The Wagon Mound No. 1.
The claim succeeds. Damages are awarded, nominal if no loss is proved.

Don't confuse: damnum sine injuria, injuria sine damno and damages

These three expressions look alike, and students often swap them. Use the table.

Point	Damnum sine injuria	Injuria sine damno
Meaning	Damage without legal injury	Legal injury without damage
Legal right violated?	No	Yes
Actual loss?	Yes, perhaps heavy	None needed
Can the plaintiff sue?	No	Yes. Actionable per se
Leading cases	Gloucester Grammar School Case, Mogul Steamship, Bradford v. Pickles	Ashby v. White, Bhim Singh
Example	A rival shop takes your customers	A returning officer wrongly refuses your vote

Inside injuria sine damno. A club in Hyderabad wrongly bars a lawful member from using its library for a day. The member loses no money. His right was violated, so he can sue and obtain nominal damages.

Just outside it (damnum sine injuria). A new bus service starts on the route where Mohan runs an auto-rickshaw service and Mohan's earnings fall. No right of his was violated, so he has no claim.

Remember also that "damage" is the harm suffered, while "damages" are the money awarded for it.

Common mistakes

Saying every loss is actionable. A loss without a violated right gives no claim.
Reversing the maxims. Damnum sine injuria is not actionable. Injuria sine damno is.
Thinking a malicious motive turns a lawful act into a tort. It does not.
Writing "damage" when "damages" is meant. They are different.
Applying the old directness test of Re Polemis. The Wagon Mound No. 1 overruled it.

Apply it

Problem

A qualified voter in a municipal election in Nizamabad is wrongly refused a ballot paper by the presiding officer. The candidate he supported wins anyway. The voter wants damages from the officer. Can he claim?

Issue. Is wrongful refusal of the vote actionable when the voter suffers no loss?

Rule. A violation of a legal right is actionable even without proved loss: injuria sine damno. Ashby v. White decided this for the right to vote.

Application. The right to vote is a legal right and the officer's refusal violated it. That the voter's candidate won does not matter. The wrong is complete when the vote is refused.

Conclusion. The voter can claim. Without proved loss he will usually get nominal damages.

Leading case laws

Ashby v. White (1703)
Facts. A returning officer at Aylesbury refused the vote of a qualified voter. The jury gave him £5 damages.

Principle. Violation of a legal right is actionable, whether or not the voter's candidate won.

Why it matters. The leading case on injuria sine damno and ubi jus ibi remedium.
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)
Facts. A schoolmaster set up a rival school nearby and charged lower fees. The old school lost pupils.

Principle. Loss from lawful competition gives no claim.

Why it matters. The earliest recorded case on damnum sine injuria.
Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892)
Facts. Shipowners cut freight rates and offered rebates to shut a rival out of the China tea trade.

Principle. The combination was lawful because the object was lawful and no unlawful means were used. The rival's loss was damnum sine injuria.

Why it matters. Aggressive but lawful competition is not a tort.
Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895)
Facts. Pickles dug on his own land and affected the water supply to Bradford's springs. The town said he meant to force a sale.

Principle. A lawful act is not made unlawful by a bad motive.

Why it matters. Motive is irrelevant if the act is within the actor's legal rights.
P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma (1958)
Facts. Landowners built bunds to protect their land from floodwater. The water was diverted onto the neighbour's crops.

Principle. A landowner may reasonably protect his land from flood. The neighbour's loss is damnum sine injuria.

Why it matters. An Andhra Pradesh High Court illustration of the maxim.
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal (1975)
Facts. An owner built sixteen shops without the required notice and sanction. The committee demolished them, allegedly out of spite.

Principle. Demolition of an unauthorised structure is lawful. Malice does not make it a tort.

Why it matters. It confirms that real loss from a lawful act gives no claim.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985)
Facts. An MLA was arrested at night while travelling to an Assembly session and held in unlawful custody for four days.

Principle. The Supreme Court held that his rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) were violated and awarded Rs 50,000.

Why it matters. Money compensation for violation of a basic right, though he was already released on bail. It is a public law remedy.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. (The Wagon Mound No. 1) (1961)
Facts. Oil negligently spilled into Sydney Harbour later caught fire and damaged a dock.

Principle. The Privy Council held that a negligent defendant is liable only for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Re Polemis is no longer good law.

Why it matters. It is the modern test of remoteness of damage.

How to write this answer in the exam

5-mark answer

State that legal damage means violation of a legal right, not mere loss.
Define damnum sine injuria, with Gloucester Grammar School Case.
Define injuria sine damno, with Ashby v. White.
Add a one-line table or example for each.

10-mark answer

Wrongful act and legal damage, and the difference from plain loss.
Damnum sine injuria with Gloucester Grammar School Case, Mogul Steamship and Bradford v. Pickles.
Injuria sine damno, actionable per se, with Ashby v. White and Bhim Singh.
Comparison table.
Kinds of damages: nominal, contemptuous, ordinary, aggravated, exemplary.
Assessment: restitutio in integrum, once and for all, mitigation.
Remoteness: Re Polemis replaced by The Wagon Mound No. 1; thin skull rule.

Key points to remember

Legal damage means violation of a legal right. Loss alone is not enough.
Damnum sine injuria: loss without legal injury, not actionable.
Injuria sine damno: legal injury without loss, actionable per se.
A lawful act is not made unlawful by a bad motive.
Kinds of damages: nominal, contemptuous, ordinary (general and special), aggravated, exemplary.
Damages aim at restitutio in integrum, are awarded once and for all, and are reduced by failure to mitigate.
Remoteness: reasonable foresight of the kind of damage (The Wagon Mound No. 1). Thin skull rule applies.

Quick self-test

1. What is the difference between damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damno?

In damnum sine injuria there is loss but no violation of a legal right, so there is no claim. In injuria sine damno a legal right is violated though there is no loss, so the claim succeeds.

2. Why did the voter win in Ashby v. White although his candidate won?

The right to vote is a legal right. Its wrongful denial is actionable even without loss.

3. What test of remoteness applies today?

The defendant is liable for damage of a kind that a reasonable person could foresee, from The Wagon Mound No. 1.