INJURY - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

See encyclopedia: Unfair Competition and False Advertising -- 15 USC 1125(a) →

INJURYAuthored

The Law Mind • 1374 words

Definition

Injury is any wrong, damage, or violation done to a person — whether to their body, rights, reputation, property, or legally protected interests. The term operates across virtually every field of law and carries distinct functional meanings depending on context:

1. Tort and general private law: Any actionable wrong suffered by a person, whether physical, financial, or dignitary. Injury in this sense is the harm that gives rise to a cause of action. It encompasses physical harm to the body, economic loss, damage to reputation, and interference with legal rights.

2. Constitutional standing doctrine: A concrete, particularized harm — actual or imminent — that a plaintiff must demonstrate to invoke federal judicial power. In this context, injury is a threshold jurisdictional requirement, not merely an element of a cause of action.

3. Civil procedure (accrual): The moment injury occurs — or is discovered — often determines when a statute of limitations begins to run. Courts distinguish between the "injury rule" (limitations run from the date harm occurs) and the "discovery rule" (limitations run from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury).

4. Tax law: Certain compensation received on account of personal physical injury or physical sickness is excluded from gross income under federal tax law, making the characterization of a payment as injury-related a consequential legal determination.

The term must be distinguished from damage (damnum): injury denotes the violation of a right; damage denotes the quantifiable loss flowing from that violation. A legal wrong without measurable loss is still an injury. Measurable loss without a violated right may be damnum absque injuria — damage without legal injury.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Damage to the body of a living thing; other forms of damage sustained by a living thing, e.g. psychologically; the violation of a person's reputation, rights, property, or interests; injustice.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Any damage or violation of the person, character, feelings, rights, property, or interests of an individual; that which injures or occasions wrong, loss, damage, or detriment; harm; hurt; loss; mischief; wrong; evil.

The gap here is not dramatic — both common and legal usage use "injury" broadly — but the legal term carries a critical structural distinction that common usage obscures: injury in law refers to the violation of a right, not merely the experience of harm or loss. A person can suffer significant hardship without sustaining a legally cognizable injury, and conversely, a technical violation of a legal right constitutes injury even without tangible harm.

Common Confusion

INJURY VS. DAMAGE (DAMNUM)
These terms are frequently collapsed in both lay and legal usage, but classical common law carefully separated them. Injury (injuria) is the unlawful act or violation of right. Damage (damnum) is the pecuniary or quantifiable loss that results. The distinction matters most in two contexts: (1) nominal damages are available where injury exists but no damage is proven; and (2) damnum absque injuria — loss suffered without violation of a legal right — affords no cause of action. Modern statutes and judicial opinions often use "injury" loosely to mean harm of any kind, so researchers must read carefully.

Why It Matters in Research

The word "injury" appears in nearly every corner of the Law Mind corpus, but its meaning shifts significantly by field, era, and jurisdiction. Researchers should keep three navigational concerns in mind.

First, the injury/damage distinction is often controlling in historical sources but frequently blurred in modern materials. Pre-twentieth-century cases and treatises are careful to separate injuria from damnum. Modern opinions use "injury" as a catch-all for any cognizable harm. When reading historical sources that deny recovery "for want of injury," the researcher should check whether the court means no right was violated (no injuria) or merely no loss was proven (no damnum) — these are different outcomes with different doctrinal significance.

Second, the constitutional injury requirement (standing doctrine) is a distinctly modern construct. Historical dictionary sources have no entry for injury-in-fact as a jurisdictional concept; that doctrine developed through twentieth-century federal case law. Researchers working in constitutional law need to cross-reference the Encyclopedia entry on standing rather than relying on historical dictionary definitions.

Third, in civil procedure, the accrual question — when injury occurs for limitations purposes — is highly jurisdiction-specific and has evolved considerably. The "injury rule" and "discovery rule" reflect different policy judgments about when a plaintiff should be charged with knowledge of harm. Historical sources will not reflect the modern discovery rule, which became dominant in many jurisdictions only in the latter half of the twentieth century.

For tax researchers, the characterization of a recovery as compensation for "personal physical injury" carries significant income exclusion consequences. The term "injury" in tax materials carries a narrower, more technical meaning than its tort-law counterpart, and the physical/non-physical distinction has been the subject of substantial litigation and statutory revision.

Historical Dictionary Support

The historical sources converge on a broad, rights-centered definition but vary in emphasis and precision.

Black's Law Dictionary (1st Ed.) offers the most comprehensive framing: injury is "any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property." The first edition incorporates the civil law sense as well, referencing the Roman delict concept of injuria as a malicious offense against body, dignity, or reputation — a notably narrower formulation requiring contempt or outrage rather than mere unlawful interference.

Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the most analytically useful entry. Burrill defines injury as "wrong; the privation or violation of right," tracing it to Blackstone's Commentaries (4 Bl. Com. 1–3), and then delivers a pointed editorial observation: "In ordinary language, this word has effectually usurped the meaning of damnum, (damage,) from which it is so carefully distinguished in law." This is the earliest and clearest statement in the shelf sources of the injury/damage confusion that continues to plague legal analysis.

Rapalje & Lawrence address injury in the context of injunction practice, illustrating the distinction between injury and damage through the example of stream pollution: pollution that causes no measurable harm to a plaintiff is still an "injury without damage" — a legal wrong that may support equitable relief even absent quantifiable loss. This is a useful illustration of the doctrinal consequences of the injury/damage distinction.

Anderson's Dictionary of Law approaches injury in the preventive-remedy context of injunctions, noting the balance courts must strike between the injury to the moving party and potential injury to the adverse party. This reinforces injury's role as a threshold concept in equitable jurisdiction.

Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.), in the excerpted material, focuses on the maxims injuria non excusat injuriam (one wrong does not justify another) and injuria non presumitur (injury is not presumed), the latter being a significant evidentiary principle: wrongful or oppressive conduct will not be presumed and must be proven.

No historical source anticipates the constitutional injury-in-fact doctrine or the civil procedure accrual frameworks that now define much of injury's practical legal significance.

Jurisdictional Note

The injury-in-fact requirement for constitutional standing is a doctrine of federal courts and does not apply uniformly in state court systems, many of which apply more permissive standing rules. Accrual rules — including whether a jurisdiction follows the injury rule, discovery rule, or occurrence rule for limitations purposes — vary significantly by state and by cause of action. Researchers should not assume a uniform rule.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Standing — Constitutional Minimum (Injury, Causation, Redressability) (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
Accrual Rules — Discovery Rule, Injury Rule, and Occurrence Rule (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
Exclusions — Compensation for Injuries and Sickness (The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia)

INJURYmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

Any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, repu tation, or property. In the civil law. A delict committed in contempt or outrage of any one, whereby his body, his dignity, or his reputation is ma liciously injured. Voet, Com. ad Pand. 47, t. 10, no. 1. Injustum est, nisi tota lege inspecta, de una aliqua ejus particula proposita judicare vel respondere. 8 Coke, 1176. It is unjust to decide or respond as to any particular part of a law without examining the whole of the law. Op-

INJURYmain

Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910

' Injuria mon excusat injuriam. One wrong does not justify another. Broom, Max. 395. See 6 El. & BL. 47. . Injuria non presumitur., Injury is not presumed. Co. Litt. 232. Cruel, oppressive, or tortuous conduct will not be presumed. Best. Ev. p. 336, § 298. — Injuria propria non cadet in benefi«- cium facientis. One’s own wrong shall not fall to the advantage of him that does it. A man will not be allowed to derive benefit from his own wrongful act. Branch, Princ. Injuria servi dominum pertingit. The master {s liable for injury done by his servant. Lofft, 229. ' INJURIOUS WORDS. In Louisiana. Slander, or libelous words. Civil Code La. art. 3501. Any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property. ‘Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 208, 42 Am. Dec. 739; Woodruff v. Mining Co., 18 Fed. 781; Hitch v. Edge tombe County, 132 N. C. 5738, 44 S. EH. 30; Macauley v. ‘Tierney, 19 R. I. 255, 83 AtL 1, 87 L. R. A. 455, 61 Am. St. Rep. 770. In the civil law. A delict committed in. contempt or outrage of any one, whereby his body, his dignity, or his reputation is maliciously injured. Voet, Com. ad Pand, 47, t. 10, no. 1. —Civil injury. Injuries to person or proper ty, resulting from a breach of contract, delic or criminal offense, which may be redre by means of a civil action. Cullinan v. Burkhard, 41 Misc. Rep. 321, 84.N. Y. Supp. 825. —Irreparable injury. This phrase does not, mean such an injury as is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, or necessarily great damage, but includes an injury, whether great or small, which ought not to be submitted to, on the one hand, or inflicted, on the other; and which, because it is so large or so small, or ig of such constant and frequent occurrence, cannot receive reasonable redress in a court of law. Sanderlin v. Baxter, 76 Va. 806. 44 Am. Rep. 165; Farley _v. Gate City Gaslight Co., 105 Ga. 323. 31 S. E. 193: Wahle v. Reinhach, 76 TIl. 322: Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga. 872. 38 E. 71, 52 L. R. A. 755. Wrongs of a repeated and continuing character, or which occasion damages that are estimated onlv by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard, are included. Johnson v. Kier, 3 Pittsb. R. (Pa.) 204.—Personal injury. A hurt or damage done to a man’s person, such as a cut or bruise. a broken limb, or the like, as distinguished from an injury to his property or his reputation. The phrase is chiefly used in connection with actions of tort for negligence, Norris v. Grove, 100 Mich. 256. 58 N. W. 1006; State v. Clayborne, 14 Wash. 622, 45 Pac. 308: Terre Haute . Rv. Co. v. Lauer, 21 Ind.. App. 466, 52 N. E. 703. But the term is also used (chiefly in statutes) in a much wider sense, and as including any injury which is an in vasion of personal rights. and in this signification it may include such injuries as libel or slander, criminal conversation with a wife, seduction of a daughter, and mental suffering. See Delamater v. Russell, 4 How, Prac. (N.

INJURYmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888

(658) ton, 16 Id. 143. As to the old English rule, see Dan. Ch. Pr. 1462; Haynes Eq. 259; Snell Eq. 451.) Mandatory injunctions are rare in American practice. 3. Provisional and temporary. - whilst the pollution of a stream already made foul and useless by other pollutions is an injury without damage, which would, however, at once become both injury and damage on the cessation of the other polCoal Company, 5 Ch. D. 772. See DAMNUM

INJURYn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

Any damage or violation of, the person, character, feelings, rights, property, or interests of an individual; that which injures, or occasions wrong, loss, damage, or detriment; harm; hurt; loss; mischief; wrong; evil; as, his health was impaired by a severe injury; slander is an injury to the character. For he that doeth injury shall receve that he did evil. Wyclif(Col. iii. 25). Many times we do injury to a cause by dwelling on trifling arguments. I. Watts. Riot ascends above their loftiest towers, And injury and outrage. Milton.

injurynoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

Damage to the body of a living thing. | Other forms of damage sustained by a living thing, e.g. psychologically. | The violation of a person's reputation, rights, property, or interests. | Injustice.

injuryverb

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

To wrong, to injure.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In