Definition
De injuria is a Latin pleading phrase meaning "of his own wrong." It is shorthand for the fuller formula de injuria sua propria, absque tali causa — "of his own wrong, and without such cause." In common law pleading, a replication de injuria is a plaintiff's response to a defendant's plea in an action of tort where the defendant has admitted the acts complained of but alleged new matter as justification or excuse. By interposing this replication, the plaintiff traverses the whole of the defendant's plea in a single stroke, denying that any lawful cause, motive, or justification existed for the defendant's conduct and asserting that the defendant acted purely from his own wrong.
The effect of the replication is a general denial of all the new matter raised in the plea, without the plaintiff needing to traverse each element separately. It is a device of economy in pleading — a single averment that collapses what might otherwise require multiple specific traversals into one comprehensive denial.
Common Confusion
De injuria is often cited in abbreviated form without its full tail (absque tali causa), which can obscure its precise function. The phrase "of his own wrong" might suggest a standalone declaration of wrongdoing, but the operative legal force is carried by the implied denial — "without such cause" — which specifically rebuts the justification or excuse pleaded by the defendant. Researchers who encounter the abbreviated form should understand they are looking at a procedural device, not a substantive allegation of malice or intent.
Core Elements
For a replication de injuria to be properly employed, three conditions must be satisfied:
1. The action must sound in tort. The replication is not available in contract actions.
2. The defendant must have pleaded new matter as justification or excuse — mere denial is not enough to trigger this form of replication.
3. The replication must encompass all the new matter in the plea. A partial de injuria replication is improper; the formula must meet the whole plea or it is defective.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a marker of common law pleading practice under the old forms of action and is most frequently encountered in English and American cases from roughly 1700 through the mid-nineteenth century. After the procedural reforms associated with the Field Code (New York, 1848) and subsequent code pleading reforms across American jurisdictions, the formal system of special pleading — including the replication de injuria — fell away. Researchers working in pre-code case law will encounter this term as a standard feature of tort litigation; researchers in post-code sources will encounter it only historically or in jurisdictions that retained common law pleading longer than most.
A key research trap: the presence of a replication de injuria in a case record tells you the defendant raised an affirmative defense or justification, not merely a denial. This can be significant when reconstructing the pleading posture of a case — it confirms that a plea of license, privilege, justification, or similar matter was before the court. Failure to recognize this can lead to misreading the procedural history.
The term also appears frequently in pleading treatises — Chitty, Gould, and Stephen on pleading — which are part of the treatise literature underlying much of the early American case law. When historical sources cite this replication approvingly or critically, they are almost always commenting on its scope: specifically, whether it is a permissible omnibus traversal or whether the plaintiff should have traversed the justificatory matter more specifically.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both first and second editions) define de injuria consistently and correctly as the plaintiff's replication in tort where the defendant has admitted the acts but pleaded justification, with the plaintiff averring the wrong was committed "of his own wrong, and without any such cause." The entries are concise and accurate as far as they go, but do not explain the procedural mechanics — why the replication is available only in tort, or what happens when the plea contains matter that cannot be met by a general traverse.
Burrill's Law Dictionary cross-references the fuller Latin phrase de injuria sua propria absque tali causa, correctly treating the abbreviated form as shorthand for the complete formula. Burrill's cross-referencing practice here is useful; researchers should follow his reference to the complete phrase to understand the full scope of the device.
What the historical dictionaries collectively omit is any explanation of the replication's limitations: courts recognized that a de injuria replication was improper where the defendant's plea contained matter that, if true, would constitute a complete defense going beyond a simple traversal — for example, where the plea raised a matter of record or a title question. In such cases, specific traversal was required. This limitation is important and is not surfaced by any of the dictionary sources consulted.
Jurisdictional Note
De injuria as a formal pleading device is effectively obsolete in all American jurisdictions that have adopted notice pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or state equivalents. It retains historical significance in jurisdictions where common law pleading forms were preserved into the late nineteenth century — including certain New England states and some southern jurisdictions — and remains operative in understanding English common law pleading, which was never formally displaced by code reform in the same manner.