Lord Holt

This was not only true of continental legal systems but also of the common law. For at about the same time when Voet wrote his Coninientarius ad Pandectas Chief Justice Holt handed down the two decisions of Boson v.

Sandford (1691 )⁹¹ and Turberville v. Stampe (1698)⁹² which established the modern English concept of vicarious liability. He, too, obviously drew his inspiration from some of the Roman precedents (the actio de effitsis vel deiectis and the liability of the sea-carrier)⁹³ and thus it is hardly surprising that the head- note in Turberville v. Stampe reads like an English rendition of the words used by Johannes Voet: 'A master is responsible for all acts done by his servant in the course of his employment'; and in order to demarcate the new rule from the old common law principle the phrase 'though without particular direction' was added. This, essentially, has

^яч Translation by Percival Gane, The Selective Void, vol. ii (1955), 606.

■*· ("Whoever has entrusted some function to someone's care is responsible for the wrongs and quasi-wrongs which that person commits in the exercise of the functions in charge of which he was placed'.) ‘Trade des obligations', in CEttvres (1835), n. 453.

⁹⁽¹ On the application of which, see Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kotz, Лп Introduction to Comparative Law, tr. Tony Weir (3rd edn., 1998), 635 ff.

⁹¹ (1691) 2 Salkeld 440. ⁴² (1698) I Ld Raym 264.

⁹¹ See Zimmermann, Festschrift Lange (n. 84) 319 ff. and Wicke (n. 83) § 4 V. Wicke also draws attention, i.a., to Christopher St. Germain, Doctor and Student, ed. Theodore F. Plucknett and J. L. Barton, Selden Society 91 (1974), 265 f. remained the common law rule.^{^[354]} But, more than that, it has become one of the basic structural features of European private law.^{^[355]}

Characteristically, South African courts and legal writers^[356] did not find it too difficult to amalgamate the Roman- Dutch and English strands of the European tradition.^[357] In the process, South African law was saved from the artificial restriction of the 'common employment' doctrine which the courts in England introduced in the course of the nineteenth century:^[358] ^{^[359] a step taken for essentially the same reason for which contemporary German lawyers opted for the introduction of the requirement of fault into § 831 BGB." English law has, in the meantime, re-established its general of vicarious liability regime; German law has, so far, failed to do so.}

<< | >>

↑

Source: Zimmermann R.. Roman law, Contemporary law, European law. Oxford University Press,2004. — 113 p.. 2004

Lord Holt

More on the topic Lord Holt: