2. Liability for others in Roman law (apart from noxal liability)

. placet, ut culpam ctiam eorum quos induxit praestet suo nomine, etsi nihil convenit, si tamen culpam in inducendis admittit, quod tales habuerit vel suos vcl hospites."^[5873]

(b) Custodia

Then there were the cases where the debtor was responsible for custodia;^[5874] and custodia, as a matter of course, covered theft by servants of the debtor and, at least according to Marcellus and Ulpian, also damnum iniuria ab alio datum.^[5875] Closely related was the strict liability of nautae, caupones and stabularii based on "receptum",^[5876] where, too, it did not matter whether the destruction, loss or damage of the customer's property had come about as a result of the sea carrier's, innkeeper's or stablekeeper's own fault, of the fault of their employees or of some other incident that could not be regarded as vis maior.

(c) Delictual and quasi-delktual remedies

If we turn our attention to delictual and quasi-delictual remedies, we find a similarly casuistic approach. In late classical jurisprudence an actio legis Aquiliae in factum was occasionally granted against a person whose servants had damaged someone else's property. According to general principles of Aquilian liability, the master had to have been at fault (usually, again, in the form of culpa in eligendo). This appears to be confirmed by Proc./Ulp. D. 9, 2, 27, 11, where it is stated: "... si noxios servos habuit, damni eum iniuria teneri, cur tales habuit.^1,198 The phrase is not, however, unambiguous. The master is held responsible for the resulting damage—resulting, in this case, from the fact that his servants had burnt down a house he had hired—"by reason of having such slaves"; and it is easy to see how this formulation may be taken to establish a fiction or presumption of culpa as the basis of the master's liability, rather than to require actual proof of fault. A strict vicarious liability, in turn, was imposed by the edict in the case of the actio de deiectis vel effusis:^{[5878] [5879] the habitator[5880] was held responsible, for reasons of public policy, if something was thrown out or poured down from his house and it did not matter whether he himself, a member of his household, a free servant or anybody else who happened to be in the house had actually done the throwing out or pouring down.[5881]"1 "[CJulpa enim penes eum [sc: qui inhabitat] est", Ulpian added in order to justify the habitator's — as opposed to the owner's—liability: without thereby, however, introducing a requirement of personal fault.[5882] But, obviously, this sentence was bound to lend itself to misinterpretation; Justinian himself must have seen it as an expression of the fault-based nature of quasi-delictual liability—if he did not insert it for this very purpose.[5883]" Similarly ambiguous was the position concerning furtum vel damnum in navi aut caupone aut stabulo.2"[5884] Again, sea carriers, innkeepers and stablekeepers were strictly liable if their customer's property was damaged or stolen by one of their employees.}

3.