Law and You> Jurisprudence > Legal Wrong
Wrong means that something does not meet the anticipated outcomes we as a person or a group have set for something. According to Salmond, a wrong is an act contrary to any rule of right or justice. A wrong, in law, means violation of a legal right. A legal right is meant to be respected, the disregard of a legal right is a legal wrong. If the violation of the legal right causes any damage is called damnum. Every right is capable of being violated. For example, A sold goods to B, A has a right to receive payment for goods sold to B. If B does not make payment to A for the goods, right of A is violated by B and doing this, B has committed a wrong. The law first fixes the character and definition of rights, and then seeks to secure these rights by defining wrongs and devising the means to prevent these wrongs or provide for their redress.
According to Pollock: “wrong is in morals the contrary to right. Right action is that which moral rides prescribe or commend, wrong action is that which the forbidden. For legal purposes anything is wrong which is forbidden by law; there is wrong done whenever a legal duty is broken. Wrong may be described, in the largest, as anything done or omitted contrary to a legal duty, considered in so far as it gives rise to liability”. Hence the existence of a duty, as it involves right, involves also the possibility of wrong; logically no more than the possibility, though we know too well that all rules are in fact sometimes broken. Duty, right and wrong are not separate or divisible heads of legal rules or of their subject matter, but different legal aspects of the same rules and events. There may be duties and rights without any wrong; this happens whenever legal duties are justly and truly fulfilled. There cannot, of course, be a wrong without a duty already existing, but wrongs also create new duties and liabilities. Strictly speaking, therefore, there can be no such thing as a distinct law of wrongs. By the law of wrongs we can mean only the law of duties, or some class of duties, considered as exposed to an infraction, and the special rules for awarding redress or punishment which come into play when an infraction has taken place. There is not one law of rights or duties and another law of wrongs. Nevertheless, there are some kinds of duties which are more conspicuous in the breach than in the observance. The natural end of a positive duty is performance. A thing has to be done, and when it is duly done the duty is, as we say, discharged, the man who was lawful bound is lawfully fretted. We contemplate performance, not breach. Appointments to officers are made, or ought to be, in the expectation that the persons appointed will adequately fulfill their official duties”
There are two kinds of wrongs viz. legal wrongs and moral wrongs.
Legal Wrong:
Legal Wrong means an act which is legally wrong and contrary to the rule of legal justice and violation of the law. Thus a legal wrong is a wrong that arises by the violation, disregard, or non-observance of a legal right. Unless there is an infringement of right there cannot be a cause of action. There can be no legal wrong unless there is a violation of a corresponding legal right. Legally wrong is the one which is against the mandated law. The infringement of a legal right is always wrong, it is an infraction of legal standards of fair and proper conduct
Examples: to defame or assault somebody, to trespass on another’s land or to infringe copyright, patent, or trademark, non-payment of debts within the period of limitation, not to deliver goods as promised, and not to render the agreed services are legal wrongs.
Legal wrongs can be further classified into criminal wrongs and civil wrongs. The wrongs which are against the benefit of the public and the state are labelled as criminal wrongs, whereas wrongs that affect the interests of a particular individual are called civil wrongs. The criminal wrongs include acts such as murder, robbery, assault, theft etc. while the less serious wrongs like trespassing, nuisance, environmental pollution, copyright infringement, etc. are recognized as civil wrongs. There are, however, certain wrongs that fulfill the criterion for both civil and criminal wrong. In these situations, the distinction between the two wrongs can be slightly blurred. They can be called both a civil wrong as well as a criminal wrong. So there can be criminal as well as legal action for a single wrong. Some examples of these are assault, defamation, negligence, nuisance, reckless driving, etc.
Moral Wrong:
Moral wrong means, it is an act that is morally or naturally wrong, being contrary to the rule of natural justice e.g. disobeying one’s parents. Morally wrong is based on values and principals shaped by our upbringing or guided by our belief and faith. It’s what we know in our hearts to be good and true.
Distinguishing between Legal Wrong and Moral Wrong:
| Legal Wrong | Moral Wrong |
| Legal Wrong means an act that is legally wrong and contrary to the rule of legal justice and violation of the law. | Moral wrong means, it is an act that is morally or naturally wrong, being contrary to the rule of natural justice. |
| It is the concern of the state. | It is the concern of conscience. |
| It is punishable by the state. | It is not punishable by the state. |
| It is definite and precise. | It is vague and indefinite. |
| A legal wrong may be morally right. | A moral wrong may be legally right. |
| It is wrong within the territory of the state. | Generally moral wrong is universal |
| Examples: to defame or assault somebody, to trespass on another’s land or to infringe copyright, patent, or trademark, etc. | Examples: Disobeying one’s parents, Plucking flowers from one’s garden without his permission. |
Distinguishing between Criminal Wrong and Civil Wrong:
| Criminal Wrong | Civil wrong |
| Criminal wrong is a wrong against Society | Civil Wrong is against a private individual or individuals |
| The remedy against criminal wrong is Punishment. | Remedy against civil wrong is Damages. |
| The proceedings in case of criminal wrongs are criminal proceedings. | The proceedings in case of Civil wrongs are civil proceedings. |
| Criminal wrongs are serious in nature. | Civil wrongs are not so serious. |
| In criminal wrong intention is essential element. | In civil wrong intention is not relevant |
| In criminal wrong, State takes action against Criminal | In civil wrong, the aggrieved person takes action |
| Examples: murder, robbery, assault, theft etc. | Examples: trespassing, nuisance, environmental pollution, copyright infringement, etc. |
When we discuss wrong, we have to understand the following three important Latin Maxims:
Injuria Sine Damnum:
It means legal injury without damage or infringement of a legal right without damage. According to this maxim, a person is liable for his act which violates another’s right. Thus, if there is a legal injury on account of the defendant, he shall be responsible. The damage may be in form of money, service, physical hurt, loss of health or reputation, and loss of comfort. According to this maxim, in spite of no damages in any form, If there is a violation of legal right then in court law remedy can be obtained.
In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938 case, Ashby (the plaintiff) tendered his vote in the parliamentary election. The returning officer at the polling booth named White (the defendant) refused to register the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff was a legitimate citizen of the constituency and a qualified voter. The vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. The plaintiff filed a petition with a plea that being a qualified voter his vote was not registered. Hence he should get compensation from the defendant. The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff’s non-registered vote was in the favour of the candidate who won the election and thus there is no damage (injury) to him. Court held that the vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. Thus there is no actual loss (damage) to the plaintiff but his Legal Right of voting was violated by the defendant. To disallow a qualified voter to register his vote was a civil wrong and hence the plaintiff had the right to have a remedy in the court of the law. The doctrine of injuria sine damnum prevailed and compensation was offered to the plaintiff.
Damnum Sine Injuria:
The maxim refers to actual damage without violation of any Legal Right. Damnum sine injuria means actual damage suffered without legal injury. In such case, the mere fact of damage does not mean there is an injury i.e. violation of Legal Rights. There are many acts that are not wrongful in the eyes of Law. The damage may be in form of money, service, physical hurt, loss of health or reputation, and loss of comfort. According to this maxim, these are mere damages without any violation of Legal Rights. Thus simply damage, however substantial without the infringement of a legal right, will give no ground for action.
In Gloucester Grammar School (1411) YB II case, a schoolteacher (the defendant) started a new school in front of Gloucester Grammar School. A large number of students of Gloucester Grammar School flocked away to the new school. Thus there was a monetary loss to the owner of Gloucester Grammar School. The owner of Gloucester Grammar School (the plaintiff) filed a writ petition and his plea was that he suffered a monetary loss due to the act of the defendant and claimed compensation from the defendant. The Court’s view was that it was true that there is a financial loss (damage) to the plaintiff but the defendant has a Right to start any legal business and can have a fair competition. Hence the defendant had not violated any Legal Right of plaintiff hence no action can be taken against the defendant. As it is a fair competition, the plaintiff has an equal opportunity to improve its standard and increase his strength.
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
Ubi jus ibi remedium means whenever there is a legal right there is a remedy. The maxim is generally true to its full extent. In fact law of torts owes its origin and development to the maxim, “there is no wrong without a remedy”. There is, in law, no right without a remedy; and if all remedies to enforce a right are gone, the right in point of law ceases to exist. This maxim is applicable when the ‘Legal Rights’ exist and both the ‘no wrong’ and remedy should be legal. A wrongful act must have been done which violated legal rights clearly. If there is no legal damage (injuria) this maxim is not applicable. Then the maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’ is applicable. This maxim can only be used when the law does not provide either any relief or sufficient relief. The court of law cannot reject an application seeking justice for violation of right, simply because there is no formal recognition or provision of remedy. It is the duty of the court of law to find a remedy in such a case.
In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938 case, Ashby (the plaintiff) tendered his vote in the parliamentary election. The returning officer at the polling booth named White (the defendant) refused to register the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff was a legitimate citizen of the constituency and a qualified voter. The vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. The plaintiff filed a petition with a plea that being a qualified voter his vote was not registered. Hence he should get compensation from the defendant. The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff’s non-registered vote was in the favour of the candidate who won the election and thus there is no damage (injury) to him. Court held that the vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. Thus there is no actual loss (damage) to the plaintiff but his Legal Right of voting was violated by the defendant. To disallow a qualified voter to register his vote was a civil wrong and hence the plaintiff had the right to have a remedy in the court of the law. Thus prohibition to vote was legal wrong, hence Court gave the remedy based on this maxim.
Conclusion:
Wrong means that something does not meet the anticipated outcomes we as a person or a group have set for something. There are two kinds of wrongs viz. legal wrongs and moral wrongs. Legal Wrong means an act that is legally wrong and contrary to the rule of legal justice and violation of the law. Moral wrong means, it is an act that is morally or naturally wrong, being contrary to the rule of natural justice. Legal wrongs can be further classified into criminal wrongs and civil wrongs. The wrongs which are against the benefit of the public and the state are labelled as criminal wrongs, whereas wrongs that affect the interests of a particular individual are called civil wrongs.