Odger's English Common Law

INJURIA ET DAMNUM.
415
defendant for diverting the water, although the plaintiffs had not them-
selves suffered thereby any actual damage or inconvenience. 1
Injuria ct Damnum.
Where, however, no right of the plaintiff has been violated
and the defendant has merely neglected to do his duty, a
different rule prevails. In such a case no one has any right
of action unless the duty neglected was a duty owed to him
and ho has sustained some special and appreciable damage
from its neglect. For instance, the breach of a public duty
or the omission to do something required to be done by statute
would not be actionable at the suit of any one who had sustained
no damage in consequence. So, again, mere negligence, mala
fides, fraud or misrepresentation will not give a right of
action for damages unless actual damage has been thereby
caused to the plaintiff. There are also many cases in which
a cause of action is created by statute, but given only^to those
persons who have sustained particular damage. 2
In all such
cases injuria and damnum must concur in order to constitute a
right enforceable by action.
But there are cases in which eveu the combination of
injuria and damnum will, for special reasons, fail to constitute
a ground of action. In the first place there may have been
some damage sustained, but it may be such as the law deems
too remote, because it is not a sufficiently direct consequence
of the illegal act complained of. 3
be the proximate cause of the damage.
The defendant's act must
Thus, "it is a well-establislied and settled rule that the underwriter is
liable for no loss which is not proximately caused by the perils insured
against." 4 So, in an action of slander when the words used are not action-
able per se, the special damage relied upon to support the action must be a
legal and natural or reasonable consequence of the words spoken ; thus
it would not suffice to show that, by reason of them, some third ] person
had been led to commit an assault and battery on the plaintiff. 5 And
where a barman was dismissed in consequence of the defendant saying
1 Barroji v. Hirst (1868), L. E. 4 Ex. 43.
2 Rodgers v. Parker (1856), 18 C. B. 112 ; Lucas v. Tarleton (1858), 3 H. & N.
Pickering v. James (1873), L. K. 8 C. P. 489.
116 ;
a See Remoteness of Damage, post. p. 1294.
' Per Martin, B., in Rankin v. Potter (1873), L. E. 6 H. L. at p. 143.
* Per Lord EUenborough, C. J., in Vicars v. Wilcocks (1806), 8 East, at p. i.