Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

A mill owner, Kavita Textiles, diverts a stream on its own land, reducing water to a neighbour's farm, in lawful exercise of its rights, with no right of the neighbour infringed. Separately, a trespasser, Dev, walks over Kavita's land without permission but causes no harm at all. Which pair of conclusions is correct?

The neighbour cannot sue because the loss follows a lawful act and violates no legal right, which is damnum sine injuria. Kavita can sue Dev because trespass to land is actionable per se, so no proof of actual damage is needed.

  1. ANeighbour can sue; Kavita cannot sue Dev
  2. BNeighbour cannot sue as it is damnum sine injuria; Kavita can sue Dev as trespass is actionable per seCorrect
  3. CNeither can sue as no loss was proved in either case
  4. DBoth can sue because each suffered a wrong

Explanation

The neighbour's loss arises from a lawful act with no legal right violated, so it is damnum sine injuria. Trespass to land is actionable per se, so Kavita can sue Dev even without damage (injuria sine damno). Option 2 wrongly demands proof of loss for trespass.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions