Odger's English Common Law

412 PRIVATE RIGHTS OP ACTION.
the damage done by the works which it authorises, and directs
the method by which such compensation is to be assessed
either by justices of the peace, or by arbitration. No com-
pensation, however, can be awarded unless the act which the
statute authorises would in the absence of such authority have
been actionable at common law. 1
Again, in these cases compensation can be recovered only
for damage which flows from the original construction of the
works, not for damage which is caused by the subsequent
management or working of the railway or other undertaking
after it has been constructed. Thus, statutory compensation
cannot be claimed in respect of the noise and smoke of trains
which run on the railway after the line has been constructed. 2
Injuria sine Damno.
But although damnum sine injuria is not actionable, injuria
sine damno is frequently a sufficient foundation for an action.
This is so whenever a legal right of the plaintiff has been
violated, even though no loss or damage has been thereby
occasioned. But if A. merely neglects his duty, this will as
a rule give no right of. action to B., unless it has caused bim
some loss or damage.
Thus, oq proof of a breach of contract the plaintiff is as a general rule
entitled to judgment, although he has proved no damage. " Where there
is a breach of an express contract, nominal damages may be recovered,"
although no damage has really been sustained. 3
So, whenever any proprietary right of the plaintiff has been invaded, an
action lies without proof of any damage. If one of the public trespasses
along a private road, he is liable to an action, though he has done uo
damage. The rule is the same in the case of an infringement of a copy-
right, patent or trade-mark. 4
Every man has a right to have his person and his property preserved
inviolate. And just as any invasion of a man's property is actionable without
proof of any pecuniary loss, so is any serious disparagement of his good
1 See Bichet v. Metropolitan. By. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 175 ; Hammersmith.
Ax., My. Co. v. Brand (1869), h. R. 4 H. L. 171 ; McCarthy v. Metropolitan
Board of Worhs (1874), L. R. 7 H. h. 243 ; L. B. &• S. C. By. Co. v. Truman (1885),
11 App. Cas. 45 ; Eastern and S. A. Telegraph Co. v. Cape Town Tramways Co.,
[1902] A. C. 381.
2 City of Glasgow Union My. Co. v. Hunter (1870), L. R. 2 II. L. (Sc.) 78.
8 Per Park, J., in Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. at p. 425 ; and see
Goodwin v. Cremer (1852), 18 Q. B. 761 ; Cook v. Hopewell (1856), 11 Exch. 555.
* See " Singer " Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson (1877), 3 App. Cas. 376 ;
Johnston v. Orr-Ewing # Co. (1882), 7 App. Cas. 219 ; and post, pp. 617, 021.
—