Injuria sine damno
Latin: Legal injury without damage
The violation of a legal right is actionable even though the plaintiff has suffered no actual loss. It applies to torts actionable per se, such as trespass and false imprisonment.
Explained
Injuria sine damno means a legal injury without actual damage. Injuria is the infringement of a legal right; damnum is actual harm, loss or damage. The maxim states that where a legal right is violated, the plaintiff has a cause of action even if he has suffered no pecuniary or physical loss, because the law presumes damage from the violation itself. The maxim has no statutory home in India and is applied by courts as part of the common law of torts.
It operates in torts that are actionable per se, that is, without proof of damage. Trespass to land, trespass to the person such as assault, battery and false imprisonment, and libel are the usual examples. The classic authority is Ashby v. White (1703), where a returning officer wrongfully refused to accept a qualified voter's vote. The candidate he voted for was elected anyway, so the voter lost nothing, yet he was held entitled to damages because his legal right to vote had been infringed. In India the principle underlies the award of compensation for illegal detention in Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985), where a legislator was wrongfully detained and prevented from attending the Assembly.
The maxim is the converse of damnum sine injuria, damage without legal injury, under which no action lies however great the loss if no legal right is infringed. The usual example is Gloucester Grammar School (1410), where a rival school that drew away pupils caused loss but violated no right. Torts that require proof of actual damage, such as negligence, fall outside injuria sine damno, since damage is part of the cause of action there. Where only the right is violated, damages may be nominal, though the court can award more where the conduct deserves it.
Examiners test the meaning of the two Latin words, Ashby v. White, the contrast with damnum sine injuria, and the point that the maxim applies only to torts actionable per se.
Example
For example, if A walks across B's lawn without permission and causes no harm at all, B can still sue A for trespass and recover at least nominal damages.
For the exam
- Injuria means violation of a legal right; damnum means actual loss.
- Applies to torts actionable per se, such as trespass, false imprisonment and libel.
- Leading case: Ashby v. White (1703), refusal of a vote.
- Converse maxim: damnum sine injuria, as in Gloucester Grammar School (1410).
- Torts needing proof of damage, such as negligence, fall outside the maxim.
6 questions in the Law Maker question bank use this maxim. Practise Law of Torts questions
Related terms
- Damnum sine injuriaActual loss or harm caused without the violation of any legal right gives no cause of action in tort.
- Ubi jus ibi remediumWhere there is a right, there is a remedy. A legal right carries with it the means of enforcing it, so its violation is actionable.
- Volenti non fit injuriaA person who freely and with full knowledge consents to a risk of harm cannot sue for the harm that results. It is a general defence in the law of torts.
- Res ipsa loquiturThe thing speaks for itself. Where an accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence and the thing was under the defendant's control, negligence may be inferred.
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.