Legal Definitions - de injuria

De injuria is a historical legal term from common law, literally meaning "of injury." It refers to a specific type of legal response, known as a traverse de injuria, used by a plaintiff in certain lawsuits, particularly those involving trespass.

When a defendant offered an excuse or justification for their actions, a plaintiff could use a traverse de injuria to directly deny the validity of that excuse, asserting that the defendant's actions were indeed wrongful and not justified. It was a way for the plaintiff to challenge the defendant's defense without having to address each specific point of the justification individually.

• Example 1: Land Trespass

  Imagine a historical case where a landowner, Mr. Henderson, sues his neighbor, Mr. Davies, for trespass because Mr. Davies repeatedly walked across Mr. Henderson's private field. Mr. Davies responds by claiming he had a legal right of way across the field, perhaps an easement. In this scenario, Mr. Henderson could employ a traverse de injuria in his reply to Mr. Davies' defense. By doing so, Mr. Henderson would be asserting that Mr. Davies' claimed right of way was not valid or did not apply, and therefore, Mr. Davies' actions were indeed an unjustified trespass.

• Example 2: Assault and Battery

  Consider a situation where Mr. Peterson sues Mr. Grant for assault and battery, alleging that Mr. Grant struck him. Mr. Grant defends himself by claiming he acted purely in self-defense, believing he was about to be attacked. If Mr. Peterson believed that Mr. Grant's claim of self-defense was entirely false, exaggerated, or disproportionate to any perceived threat, Mr. Peterson could historically use a traverse de injuria. This would signify Mr. Peterson's direct denial of the legitimacy of Mr. Grant's self-defense claim, arguing that Mr. Grant's actions were an unprovoked and unjustified assault.

• Example 3: Interference with Goods

  Suppose a merchant, Ms. Chen, sued a local official, Mr. Miller, for taking a quantity of her goods from her shop. Mr. Miller might defend his actions by stating he was lawfully seizing the goods due to unpaid taxes or a legal warrant. If Ms. Chen believed that Mr. Miller's justification was invalid – perhaps the taxes were paid, or the warrant was improperly issued or applied – she could historically respond with a traverse de injuria. This legal maneuver would indicate Ms. Chen's outright rejection of Mr. Miller's excuse, asserting that his taking of her goods was an unlawful and unjustified act.