Question

Gloucstershire grammar School Case is a leading case to explain the

• A. Volenti non fit injuria
• B. Injuria non fit volenti
• C. Damnum sine injuria
• D. Injuria sine damnum

Hint:

Clearly distinguish between \textit{Damnum sine injuria} and \textit{Injuria sine damno}. Remember the leading cases for each: \textit{Gloucester Grammar School} for the former and \textit{Ashby v. White} (where a voter was wrongfully prevented from voting) for the latter.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question relates to fundamental maxims in the Law of Torts.
- Damnum sine injuria: This means damage without the violation of a legal right. In such cases, no action lies in tort.
- Injuria sine damno: This means the violation of a legal right without causing any actual harm or damage. This is actionable in tort.
- Volenti non fit injuria: This is a defense in tort, meaning no injury is done to one who consents.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Gloucester Grammar School Case is the classic illustration of the maxim \textit{Damnum sine injuria}.
Facts of the case: The defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school next to the plaintiff's school. This competition caused the plaintiff to reduce their fees, resulting in a financial loss. The plaintiff sued the defendant for this loss.
Judgment: The court held that the defendant had not violated any legal right of the plaintiff. The defendant was merely exercising his lawful right to carry on a profession. Even though the plaintiff suffered financial damage (\textit{damnum}), there was no infringement of a legal right (\textit{injuria}). Therefore, no action could be maintained.