Injuria Sine Damno

This maxim means infringement or violation of a legal private right of a person even if there is no actual loss or
damage. In such a case the person whose right is infringed has a good cause of action. It is not necessary for him to
prove any special damage. The infringement of private right is actionable per se. What is required to show is the
violation of a right in which case the law will presume damage. Thus, in cases of assault, battery, false
imprisonment, libel etc., the mere wrongful act is actionable without proof of special damage. The Court is bound to
award to the plaintiff at least nominal damages if no actual damage is proved. Thus, this maxim provides for,

1. Infringement of a legal right of a person.

2. No actual loss or damage is required to prove.
3. Infringement of a private right is actionable per se.

In Municipal Board of Agra v Asharfi Lal, the facts are, the Plaintiff (Asharfi Lal) was entitled to be entered as an
elector upon the electoral roll. His name was wrongfully omitted from the electoral roll and he was deprived of his
right to vote. It was held by the court that if any duly qualified citizen or person entitled to be on the electoral roll of
an constituency is omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote, he has suffered a legal wrong, he
has been deprived of a right recognized by law and he has against the person so depriving him, a remedy, that is, an
action lies against a person depriving I him of his right.

Similarly, in Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, the petitioner, an M.L.A. of Jammu & Kashmir Assembly, was wrongfully
detained by the police while he was going to attend the Assembly session. Thus, he was deprived of his fundamental
right to personal liberty and constitutional right to attend the Assembly session. The court awarded exemplary
damages of Rs. Fifty thousand by way of consequential relief.

Damnum sine injuria

Damnum sine injuria means an actual and substantial loss without infringement of any legal right. In such a case no
action lies in tort. This generally happens when exercise of ones right leads to consequential loss to other. in such
cases, no action lies even though the damage is intentional. The reasons behind this principle is that it shall not be
possible to carry out normal life without undertaking various acts that will cause loss or damage to others. Hence,
every form of harm or loss is not covered in the law. The essential requirement is the violation of a legal right.

There are many forms of harm of which the law takes no account,

1. Loss inflicted on individual traders by competition in trade,

2. Where the damage is done by a man acting under necessity to prevent a greater evil,
3. Damage caused by defamatory statements made on a privileged occasion,
4. Where the harm is too trivial, too indefinite or too difficult of proof,
5. Where the harm done may be of such a nature that a criminal prosecution is more appropriate for example,
in case of public nuisance or causing of death,
6. There is no right of action for damages for contempt of court.

Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, A legal act, though motivated by malice, will not make the defendant liable.
The plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have suffered injury because of an illegal act of the
defendant. The plaintiff constructed 16 shops on the old foundations of a building, without giving a notice of
intention to erect a building under section 178 of the Uttar. Pradesh Municipalities Act and without obtaining
necessary sanction required under section 108 of that Act. The defendants (Town Area Committee) demolished this
construction. In an action against the defendant to claim compensation for the demolition the plaintiff alleged that
the action of the defendants was illegal as it was malifide, the municipal commissioner being an enemy of his. It
was held that the defendants were not liable as no "injuria” (violation of a legal right) could be proved because if a
person constructs a building illegally, the demolition of such building by the municipal authorities would not amount
to causing "injuria" to the owner of the property.

Act of god as a defence under Tort law.

in act of God is a general defense used in cases of torts when an event over which the defendant has no control over
occurs and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In those cases, the defendant will not be liable in law of
tort for such inadvertent damage. Act of God defined as circumstances which no human foresight can provide
against any of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, thus
the calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that result from them.

The 'act of God' defence is based on the tort law principle that liability must be founded on a fault and that a person
cannot be penalized where the fault is that of a 'vis major' where all precautions were taken, and a casualty still
occurred. Vis major is defined, as A loss that results immediately from a natural cause without the intervention of
man, and could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and care.

According to Salmond an act of God includes those acts which a man cannot avoid by taking reasonable care. Such
accidents are the result of natural forces and are incoherent with the agency of man.

Essential conditions for the availability of this defence are:

· Externality: There must be working of natural forces without any intervention from human agency, and
· Unpredictability: The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and
reasonably guarded against.
· Irresistibility: The occurrence must be such that it could not have been avoided by any amount of
precaution.

In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co[2] the defendants had constructed water pipes which were
reasonably strong enough to withstand severe frost. There was an unprecented severe frost that year causing the
pipes to burst resulting in severe damage to the plaintiff's property. It was held that though frost is a natural
phenomenon, the occurrence of an unforeseen severe frost can be attributed to an act of God, thus the relieving the
defendants of any liability.

Inevitable Accident
It means that no damages or action can be bought when the event that has happened unexpectedly and could not
have been foreseen or prevented in time even with all the reasonable precautions.

Limitations of this defence, In trespass as well as in negligence, inevitable accident has no place. In the same way the
defence has no role in cases of absolute liability.

Leading case on this point is Brown v. Kendall. A dog owned by the plaintiff was fighting with a dog owned by the
defendant. The plaintiff stood behind the defendant without his knowledge while the defendant was trying to
separate the dogs with a stick. The stick struck the plaintiff in his eye and caused injury. It was held that the
defendant was not liable as he had exercised reasonable care.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
As a general rule, a man is liable only for his own act but there are certain circumstances in which a person is liable
for the wrong committed by others. This is called "vicarious liability", that is, liability incurred for another. The most
common instance is the liability of the master for the wrong committed by his servants.

The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on principles in the following two maxims:
 1. Qui facit per alium facit per se, The maxim means, 'he who acts through another is deemed in law as doing it
himself. The master's responsibility for the servant's act had also its origin in this principle.
2. Respondent superior, This maxim means that, the superior must be responsible or let the principal be liable.
In such cases not only he who obeys but also he who command becomes equally liable This rule has its origin
in the legal presumption that all acts done by the servant in and about his master's business are done by his
master's express or implied authority and are, in truth, the act of the master.

In Baldeo Raj v. Deowati, the driver of a Truck sat by the side of the conductor and allowed the conductor to drive.
The conductor caused an accident with a rickshaw as a result of which a rikshaw passenger died. It was held that the
act of the driver in permitting the conductor to drive the vehicle at the relevant time was a breach of duty by the
driver, and that was the direct cause of the accident. For such negligence of the driver his master was held
vicariously liable.

NEGLIGENCE
In day to day usage Negligence denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise the standard
of care which the doer as a reasonable man should, by law, have exercised in the circumstances.

Negligence is, accordingly, a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused, by not taking such adequate
precautions as should have been taken in the circumstances to avoid or prevent that harm, as contrasted with
causing such harm intentionally or deliberately. A man may, accordingly, cause harm negligently though he was not
careless but tried to be careful, if the care taken was such as the court deems inadequate in the circumstances.

Negligence takes innumerable forms, but the commonest forms are negligence causing personal injuries or death, of
which species are employers’ liability to an employee, the liability of occupiers of land to visitors thereon, the liability
of suppliers to consumers, of persons doing work to their clients, of persons handling vehicles to other road-users,
and so on.

1. Negligence as state of mind- Negligence is a mode of committing certain torts e.g. negligently or carelessly
committing trespass, nuisance or defamation. This is the subjective meaning of negligence advocated by the
Austin, Salmond and Winfield.
2. Negligence as a type of conduct- Negligence is a conduct, not a state of mind. Conduct which involves the
risk of causing damage. This is the objective meaning of negligence, which treats negligence as a separate or
specific tort.

Essentials of Negligence
1. That the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. That the defendant made a breach of the duty i.e. he failed to exercise due care and skill.
a. The importance of the object to be attained
b. The magnitude of risk
3. That plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof

Kinds of Negligence
1. Contributory Negligence: person who has suffered an injury will not be able to get damages from another for
the reason his own negligence has contributed to his injury.
2. Composite Negligence: When the negligence of two or more persons result in the same damage to a third
person there is said to be a ‘composite negligence’, and the persons responsible are known as ‘composite
tort-feasors’
Nuisance
Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or
in connection with it. Acts interfering with the comfort, health or safety are the examples of it. The interference may
be any way, e.g., noise vibrations, heat, smell, smoke, fumes, water, gas, electricity, excavation or disease producing
germs.

Kinds of Nuisance

1. Public or Common Nuisance: Public nuisance is a crime where as private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public
nuisance is interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offense. Obstructing a
public way by digging a trench, or constructing structures on it are examples of public nuisance.
2. Private Nuisance or Tort of Nuisance

DEFAMATION
Man’s reputation is considered to be his property, more precious than any other

property. Defamation is an injury to reputation of a person.

Defamation is customarily classified into,

1. libel: Libel is a representation made in some permanent form e.g. writing, printing, picture, effigy or statute
2. slander: Slander is the publication of defamatory statement in a transient form

Requisites of Defamation
The constituent elements of defamation are;
1. the words must be defamatory
2. the defamatory words, should directly or indirectly refer to the person defamed, and
3. publication of the words by any medium should take place

Defences to Defamation
1. Justification or truth
2. Fair comment
3. Privilege

Defences to Trespass to the Person

1. Consent
2. Necessity
3. Self-Defence
4. In Defence of Others
5. Defence for False Imprisonment