Page images
PDF
EPUB

1 dare damnetur. Quod autem non praecise de quadrupede, sed de ea tantum quae pecudum numero est cavetur, eo pertinet, ut neque de feris bestiis neque de canibus cautum esse intellegamus, sed de his tantum, quae proprie pasci dicuntur, quales sunt equi muli asini boves oves caprae. de suibus quoque idem placuit: nam et sues pecorum appellatione continentur, quia et hi gregatim pascuntur: sic denique et Homerus in Odyssea ait, sicut Aelius Marcianus in suis institutionibus refert:

2

δήεις τόν γε σύεσσι παρήμενον· αἱ δὲ νέμονται
πὰρ Κόρακος πέτρῃ, ἐπί τε κρήνῃ Αρεθούσῃ.

Iniuria autem occidere intellegitur, qui nullo iure occidit. itaque qui latronem occidit, non tenetur, utique si aliter

the Digest, loc. cit. 2. pr. 'qui servum servamve alienum alienamve, quadrupedem vel pecudem iniuria occiderit, quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum aes dare domino damnas esto.' For the mode of reckoning the year cf. Dig. ib. 21. 1 'annus retrorsus computatur, ex quo quis occisus est: quod si mortifere fuerit vulneratus, et postea post longum intervallum mortuus sit, inde annus numerabitur secundum Iulianum, ex quo vulneratus est, licet Celsus contra scribit.'

It is only to the owner ('hero, hoc est, domino' Dig. ib. 11. 6) that the action was granted by the letter of both the first and third chapters of the statute, but in its spirit an actio utilis or in factum (§ 16 inf.) was permitted to the bona fide possessor (Dig. ib. 11. 8, ib. 17. pr.), the usufructuary and usuary (ib. 11. 10), and the pledgee (ib. 17. pr.), though to the latter only if he had been actually prejudiced by the damnum, as, e. g. if the debtor was insolvent, or if he had lost his personal remedy, and only upon the condition that whatever he recovered should be deducted from the debt secured by the pledge. All these persons could bring their action against even the dominus if it was he who had done the damnum (Dig. ib. 12; ib. 17. pr.); so that the word alienum in the statute must not be pressed.

§ 1. Praecise, id est, breviter, sine additamento (Schrader): cf. 'non praecise, sed sub condicione' Dig. 35. 3. 1. 20. The quotation is from Od. xiii. 407-8.

§ 2. That the damnum is 'iniuria datum' implies two things: (1) that the person charged has no right to do the act; 'nemo damnum facit, nisi qui id fecit quod facere ius non habet' Dig. 50. 17. 151. Instances in which this condition is not satisfied are Dig. 9. 2. 29. 7 (where the damage results from lawful exercise of magisterial authority): ib. 29. 3 (where it is done in averting damnum from oneself); ib. 5. 3 (right to inflict moderate chastisement); ib. 4; ib. 5. pr.; ib. 45. 4 (self-defence:

periculum effugere non potest. Ac ne is quidem hac lege 3 tenetur, qui casu occidit, si modo culpa eius nulla invenitur : nam alioquin non minus ex dolo quam ex culpa quisque hac lege tenetur. Itaque si quis, dum iaculis ludit vel exercitatur, transeuntem servum tuum traiecerit, distinguitur. nam si id a milite quidem in campo eoque, ubi solitum est exercitari, 4 admissum est, nulla culpa eius intellegitur: si alius tale quid admisit, culpae reus est. idem iuris est de milite, si is in alio loco, quam qui exercitandis militibus destinatus est, id admisit. Item si putator ex arbore deiecto ramo servum 5 tuum transeuntem occiderit, si prope viam publicam aut vicinalem id factum est neque praeclamavit, ut casus evitari

cf. the text of this section). (2) The act by which the damage is occasioned must be one for which the person charged is responsible; it must be due at least to culpa on his part: for this see the next section.

§ 3. The fact that dolus was not essential to constitute damnum iniuria datum distinguishes it clearly from the three other delicts: 'when culpa is once established, the amount of the defendant's liability does not depend on its degree;' 'in lege Aquilia et levissima culpa venit' Dig. 9. 2. 44. pr., 'culpam autem esse, quod, cum a diligente provideri potuerit, non esse provisum' ib. 31: cf. § 8 inf. The idea is sufficiently illustrated in the next five sections.

It is a much argued question whether very slight negligence in a party to a legal relation in which he was answerable for culpa lata only would entitle the other party to sue him under the lex Aquilia; as where a depositary by slight negligence causes destruction of or damage to the res deposita. The true answer depends on the correct appreciation of a rather fine distinction. Some acts are acquitted of culpa, if there be a legal relation between the parties, which would otherwise be imputable; e. g. a delicate piece of glass work is given to an artificer to repair, and breaks to pieces in his hands through no want of skill or caution on his part. But if the act is one which is not excused by virtue of the legal relation, the actio legis Aquiliae will lie, because the delinquent is exempted from liability for culpa levis only in respect of the specific duties which that relation imposes on him, Dig. 40. 12. 13. pr.; 47. 4. I. 2 ; 9. 2. 5. 3.

§ 4. Where a man is killed by a javelin thrown by a soldier 'in campo eoque ubi solitum est exercitari' the culpa is all his own, and 'quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit non intellegitur damnum sentire' Dig. 50. 17. 203. Contributory negligence of the person injured usually excluded the action, Dig. 9. 2. 11. pr.; ib. 28. 1; ib. 52. 1: but this was not so if the damage was wilful, even though there had been culpa lata on the other side, Dig. ib. 13.

[ocr errors]

possit, culpae reus est: si praeclamavit neque ille curavit cavere, extra culpam est putator. aeque extra culpam esse intellegitur, si seorsum a via forte vel in medio fundo caedebat, licet non praeclamavit, quia eo loco nulli extraneo ius fuerat 6 versandi. Praeterea si medicus, qui servum tuum secuit, dereliquerit curationem atque ob id mortuus fuerit servus, 7 culpae reus est. Imperitia quoque culpae adnumeratur, veluti si medicus ideo servum tuum occiderit, quod eum male secuerit 8 aut perperam ei medicamentum dederit. Impetu quoque mularum, quas mulio propter imperitiam retinere non potuerit, si servus tuus oppressus fuerit, culpae reus est mulio. sed et si propter infirmitatem retinere eas non potuerit, cum alius firmior retinere potuisset, aeque culpae tenetur. eadem placuerunt de eo quoque, qui, cum equo veheretur, impetum eius aut propter infirmitatem aut propter imperitiam suam retinere 9 non potuerit. His autem verbis legis 'quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuerit' illa sententia exprimitur, ut si quis hominem tuum, qui hodie claudus aut luscus aut mancus erit, occiderit, qui in eo anno integer aut pretiosus fuerit, non tanti teneatur, quanti is hodie erit, sed quanti in eo anno plurimi fuerit. qua ratione creditum est poenalem esse huius legis actionem, quia non solum tanti quisque obligatur, quantum damni dederit, sed aliquando longe pluris: ideoque constat in heredem eam actionem non transire, quae transitura fuisset, si ultra damnum

§ 6. As a general rule the penalty of the lex Aquilia was incurred only by positive acts of commission: 'sunt casus, quibus cessat Aquiliae actio.... nam qui agrum non proscindit, qui vites non subserit, item aquarum ductus corrumpi patitur, lege Aquilia non tenetur' Dig. 7. 1. 13. 2. But where a person had once commenced a course of action, cessation of which would be disastrous (e.g. the case in the text), an omission entailed liability, Dig. 9. 2. 8. pr.; ib. 27. 9; ib. 31.

§ 7. Imperitia in surgeons is treated as culpa also in Dig. 9. 2. 7. 8; in artificers, ib. 27. 29; and assessors, Dig. 2. 2. 2: cf. the next section.

§ 8. 'Nec videtur iniquum, si infirmitas culpae adnumeretur, cum affectare quis non debeat, in quo vel intellexit vel intellegere debet, infirmitatem suam alii periculosam futuram' Dig. 9. 2. 8. I.

§ 9. The actio legis Aquiliae was penal not only for the reason noticed here, but also because the delinquent, unless the plaintiff failed to prove his case, was assumed to be condemned from the outset (damnas esto dare), so that if he were cast in the suit after denying his liability, he was condemned in duplum, Tit. 6. 19. 23. 26. inf., Gaius iii. 216; iv. 9. 171.

numquam lis aestimaretur. Illud non ex verbis legis, sed ex 10 interpretatione placuit non solum perempti corporis aestimationem habendam esse secundum ea quae diximus, sed eo amplius quidquid praeterea perempto eo corpore damni vobis adlatum fuerit, veluti si servum tuum heredem ab aliquo institutum ante quis occiderit, quam is iussu tuo adiret: nam hereditatis quoque amissae rationem esse habendam constat. item si ex pari mularum unam vel ex quadriga equorum unum occiderit, vel ex comoedis unus servus fuerit occisus: non solum occisi fit aestimatio, sed eo amplius id quoque

The action was maintainable against the delinquent's heir so far as the inheritance had been enriched by the delict: 'in heredem vel ceteros (successores) haec actio non dabitur, cum sit poenalis (see Tit. 12. I inf.), nisi forte ex damno locupletior heres factus sit' Dig. 9. 2. 23. 8. Justinian's qualification in the text (quae transitura . . . . aestimaretur) is irreconcileable with the statements of the older jurists, and tends only to confusion.

'Aliquando longe pluris,' i. e. not always for the slave (e.g.) may have been at his full value when killed, and the defendant may in the abstract admit his liability, the object of the suit being solely to assess the damages: cf. Tit. 6. 19 inf. '. . . . sed interdum,' etc.

§ 10. When one person has to pay another the value of a thing or act, two standards may be taken; the market value, verum rei pretium (Sachwerth); or its value to the particular person to whom the payment is to be made, in other words, his 'interesse.' When the latter standard is adopted, allowance is made not only for the market value, but also for what are called damnum indirectum or emergens (illustrated by the team of mules and company of actors in the text) and lucrum cessans (e. g. the slave who has been instituted heir, and is killed before he can benefit his master by accepting); the damages are assessed upon the principle of putting the plaintiff so far as possible in the position in which he would have been had the act been done which ought to have been done, or had the wrongful act never been committed. The expression ‘quanti ea res est' or 'fuit' (in actiones arbitrariae 'erit') is used to denote both of these standards: 'haec verba, quanti eam rem paret esse, non ad quod interest, sed ad rei aestimationem referuntur' Dig. 50. 16. 193, 'quanti ea res est, cuius damni infecti nomine cautum non erit, iudicium datur, quod non ad quantitatem refertur, sed ad id, quod interest, et ad utilitatem venit, non ad poenam' Dig. 39. 2. 4. 7.

The plaintiff's interesse was the standard in actions both on delict (except the actio bonorum vi raptorum, Dig. 47. 8. 2. 13) and on breaches of contract involving dolus or imputable culpa. Justinian points out that by the text of the lex Aquilia only the verum rei pretium could be claimed; the change of standard was due to the 'interpretatio' of the

11 computatur, quanto depretiati sunt qui supersunt. Liberum est autem ei, cuius servus fuerit occisus, et privato iudicio legis Aquiliae damnum persequi et capitalis criminis eum reum facere.

12, 13

Caput secundum legis Aquiliae in usu non est. Capite tertio de omni cetero damno cavetur. Itaque si quis servum vel eam quadrupedem quae pecudum numero est vulneraverit, sive eam quadrupedem quae pecudum numero non est, veluti canem aut feram bestiam, vulneraverit aut occiderit, hoc capite actio constituitur. in ceteris quoque omnibus animalibus, item in omnibus rebus quae anima carent damnum iniuria datum hac parte vindicatur. si quid enim ustum aut ruptum aut fractum fuerit, actio ex hoc capite constituitur: quamquam

earlier jurists (p. 45 supr.): cf. Ulpian in Dig. 9. 2. 21. 2 ‘sed utrum corpus eius solum aestimamus, quantum fuerit, cum occideretur, an potius, quanti interfuit nostra non esse occisum? et hoc iure utimur, ut eius quod interest fiat aestimatio.' But the plaintiff could not demand that account should be taken of lucrum which, though hoped for, was quite uncertain, Dig. ib. 29. 3, or of what the Germans call Affectionsinteresse,' ib. 33. pr. There seems to be a general tendency in Roman law to favour, in the earlier periods, the assessment of damages according to the verum rei pretium, and in the later to substitute the alternative method. By Cod. 7. 47 Justinian enacted that in actions on contract the damages recoverable as 'interesse' by the plaintiff should never be more than double the verum rei pretium.

§ 11. The criminal prosecution would be under the lex Cornelia de sicariis, B. C. 80, for which see Tit. 18. 5 inf., and was in addition to the civil remedy: 'ex morte ancillae . . . . tam legis Aquiliae actionem quam criminalem accusationem competere posse non ambigitur' Cod. 3. 35. 3, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ privata κινηθεῖσα ἀγωγὴ τὴν publicam σβέννυσιν Theoph. From Gaius iii. 213 it would seem that in his day it was otherwise : 'liberum arbitrium habet, vel capitali crimine. ... vel hac lege damnum persequi' but Ulpian speaks of the civil action as not barring the prosecution: 'in factum agendum, criminali poena servata' Dig. 19. 5. 14. I.

§ 12. 'Capite secundo in adstipulatorem qui pecuniam in fraudem stipulatoris acceptam fecerit, quanti ea res esset, tanti actio constituitur' Gaius iii. 215. For the adstipulator see Gaius iii. 110-114. This chapter had gone into desuetude at least as early as Ulpian, Dig. 9. 2. 27. 4. Schrader suggests that the incorporation of a rule of contract law in an enactment relating to damage to property was due to the desire to subject the fraudulent adstipulator to the procedure by manus iniectio pura: see Gaius iv. 22, and the General Index.

[ocr errors]

§ 13. Cap. iii. ran ceterarum rerum, praeter hominem et pecudes

« PreviousContinue »