<<
>>

Aquilian culpa in classical Roman law

As with regard to the operative verbs in chapters one and three, we find a whole range of interesting cases dealing with the culpa requirement and specifying it for individual situations.[5241] A pruner lops off the branch of a tree, which falls and kills a passer-by.

The pruner is liable, if he had done the job over a public thoroughfare and had failed to shout a warning.[5242] A farmer is liable for the damage to his neighbour's crops if he burns stubble on a windy day and is therefore unable to control the fire.[5243] [5244] [5245] A person who is throwing a javelin by way of sport, but outside a proper sports field, is held responsible under the lex Acjuilia if he hits and kills a slave who happens to be passing by.6 A barber is accountable for the death of his customer, if, having set up his business in close proximity to a playing ground, his hand is hit by a ball, the razor thereby jerked against the customer's throat and the throat, in turn, cut rather than shaved.64 In all these cases careful attempts are made to draw the line: no fault is attributable to the primer if he either shouted a warning or threw the branch down on to private land and in a place where there was no path; to the farmer if he selected a still day and took all reasonable precautions to prevent the fire from spreading; to thejavclin-thrower if he exercised in a campus iaculatorius; or to the barber if he did not shave at a place "ubi ex consuetudine ludebatur vel ubi transitus frequens erat". It is apparent from these and other texts that the Roman lawyers approached the question of culpa in a casuistic manner. They did not try to subsume the facts of the individual case under a standardized test or formula/'[5246] More particularly, they did not ask in each case whether the defendant ought to have foreseen the damage.[5247]" Foreseeability or carelessness could be important issues[5248] but they did not necessarily and conclusively determine the question of liability. The crucial issue was whether, more generally, the defendant had been at fault; whether, in other words, he had behaved as he should not have behaved;[5249] and that, in turn, depended on an evaluation of all the circumstances of the case and tended to be determined from an objective point of view.[5250] Only in some respects does a certain degree of generality appear to have been achieved.
Thus the notion of imperitia culpae adnumeratur was applied to Aquilian liability as it was to liability arising under a contract of locatio conductio operis or operarum.7" Nobody who had undertaken a particular job could escape liability by claiming that he did not possess the necessary skill to carry out that job. If a doctor operated unskilfully[5251] or if he caused damage by making the wrong use of a drug,[5252] he was liable under the lex Aquilia as well as ex locato. The same applied if a muleteer was so inexperienced that he was unable to control his mules and to stop them from running over somebody's slave.[5253] Imperitia liability, incidentally, provides a good example of the objective approach adopted by the Roman lawyers.[5254] Doctor and muleteer were not judged in relation to their experience or according to whether they could have foreseen the harm; what mattered was whether they possessed the skills that could reasonably be expected of a man of their profession.

4.

<< | >>
Source: Zimmermann R.. The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Juta & Co, Ltd,1992. — 1241 p.. 1992

More on the topic Aquilian culpa in classical Roman law:

  1. Classical Roman law
  2. WOMEN IN CLASSICAL ROMAN LAW
  3. The Classical Period of Roman Law
  4. § 69 The legal institutions of Rome of the archaic and pre-classical epoch might well serve as the basis for a course in Roman law.
  5. The Pre-Classical Period of Roman Law
  6. The Post-Classical Period of Roman Law
  7. Du Plessis P.. Studying Roman Law. Bristol Classical Press,2012. — 150 p., 2012
  8. § 44 The pri òàãó focus of this book is upon the classical period of the Roman law.
  9. Culpa
  10. 3. Culpa in Contrahendo154
  11. The law of obligations is one of the most significant contributions of Roman law to legal culture, illuminating the civil law tradition more than any other branch of Roman law.