B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2020 Nov Question Paper with Solutions

So the statement makes two claims. First, whenever a legal right is violated, the law presumes damage, and the plaintiff may sue even though he lost nothing. Second, a person may suffer heavy loss and still have no claim, if no legal right of his was violated. The law of torts protects rights, not interests in general.

"Every injury leads to damage": injuria sine damno

The principle. Injuria sine damno means a legal injury without actual loss. The violation of a right is itself treated as damage, because a right that could be ignored whenever no loss followed would mean nothing. The plaintiff need not prove loss. He recovers at least nominal damages, and more where the violation is serious.

1. The voter refused his vote. In Ashby v. White (1703), a returning officer wrongfully refused to accept the vote of a qualified elector. The candidate he supported won anyway, so the elector lost nothing. Holt C.J., dissenting in the Court of King's Bench, reasoned that every injury imports a damage, even if it costs the party nothing. Damage, he said, is not merely loss of money. His reasoning is the source of the statement in the question. As the Supreme Court of India recounted in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, the elector's claim for damages was decreed on the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.

1. The rival school. The Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) is cited by the Karnataka High Court. A schoolmaster set up a rival school next door to the plaintiff's school. Boys left the plaintiff's school for the new one, and his fees fell sharply. No action lay. Competition is no ground of action, whatever damage it causes, if no legal right is infringed.

2. Ruinous competition in trade. In Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co., [1892] AC 25, shipowners in the China tea trade formed an association. They cut freight rates to unprofitable levels and offered rebates to shippers who used only their ships, to drive the plaintiffs out. The plaintiffs lost heavily. The House of Lords held that competition, however severe, gives no cause of action without dishonesty, intimidation or other illegality.

3. Water cut off from a reservoir. In Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587, Pickles sank shafts on his own land. They cut off the percolating water that fed the Corporation's reservoir. He was said to want to force the Corporation to buy his land. The House of Lords held him not liable. No one has a right to percolating water, so a lawful use of land does not become unlawful because the motive is bad.

Limits of the statement

1. Some torts need proof of actual damage. The first half is true only of torts actionable per se: trespass to land, goods or the person, and libel. In negligence, nuisance and, in English law, most slander, the plaintiff must also prove actual damage. So for these torts a violated right without loss does not by itself give a claim.

2. Malice can turn loss into injury in nuisance. Bradford and Allen v. Flood say that motive does not matter. But in nuisance, the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct is in issue, and malice can make it unreasonable.

1. In Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch 316, a musical family gave lessons in their semi-detached house. Their neighbour deliberately knocked on the wall, beat trays and whistled whenever music was played. The court granted an injunction. Noise made deliberately to annoy is a nuisance.
2. In Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v. Emmett, [1936] 2 KB 468, the defendant had guns fired on his own land, near the boundary, to disturb the plaintiff's silver foxes in the breeding season. He was held liable in nuisance. Malice made the noise actionable, and Bradford was distinguished.

Conclusion. The statement is sound as a general rule. Where a legal right is violated, the law presumes damage and the plaintiff may sue without proving loss, as Ashby v. White, Marzetti v. Williams and Bhim Singh show. Loss alone may come from competition, the lawful use of land or a lawful act done with a bad motive. There is then no injury and no claim, as the Gloucester Grammar School case, Mogul, Bradford and Allen v. Flood show. The statement has two limits. Torts such as negligence and nuisance need actual damage. And in nuisance, malice can make an otherwise lawful annoyance actionable, as Christie v. Davey and Hollywood Silver Fox Farm hold.