Quasi delicts

Quasi delicts were the last category in the Justinian classification of obligations. As Justinian’s Institutes explains (Inst. 4.5pr.), some obligations could not prop­erly be called delictual, and yet they did not arise from contract.

Quasi delicts were isolated forms of no-fault liability with a still-unclear common factor. From the point of view of the victim, they constituted a sort of insurance or guarantee established by public policy and granted by prae­torian actions (actiones in factum). Of the four quasi delicts mentioned by Justinian, three are related to vicarious responsibility.

The first quasi delict punished the judge who reached the wrong decision or committed some irregularities in the decision-making process, either inten­tionally or negligently. The second quasi delict penalized the occupant of a building from which objects were thrown or poured out onto a street, road, or public area, no matter by whom. Passersby who suffered personal or property damages could bring a praetorian action against the occupant for double the value of the damage done, even when the occupant had no personal fault. If the wrongdoer was different from the occupant, an actio iniuriarum or an action based on the Aquilian law could be brought directly against the wrongdoer. If a free person was killed, a popular action could be brought for a fixed penalty. If the victim suffered only personal damages, the judge would determine the penalty after taking into consideration all relevant losses and circumstances.

The third quasi delict penalized the placement or suspension of objects from a building in such a way as to endanger passersby on a public road or common way. A passerby could bring an action with a fixed penalty against the occupant of a building, no matter who in fact had placed the object in the dangerous position.

Finally, a master of a ship, an innkeeper, or a stable keeper was liable for theft of things and damages to his clients (passengers or guests) by his employees or slaves. Innkeepers were also liable for damages caused by per­manent residents. The justification of the penalty lay in the negligence of the person in charge of selecting his employees. The action granted to the clients was for twice the value of the thing damaged or lost.

Further reading

Bauman, Richard A. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Roman Law. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1953; reprint 1980.

The law of obligations: delicts 217 Brasiello, Ugo. La repressione penale nel diritto romano. Napoli: Jovene, 1937. Buckland, William Warwick, and Arnold D. McNair. Roman Law and Common Law.

2nd ed. Revised by F. H. Lawson, 338-398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Castresana Herrero, Amelia. Nuevas lecturas de la responsabilidad aquiliana. Sala­manca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2001.

Cursi, Floriana M. Iniuria cum damno. Antigiuridicità e colpevolezza nella storia del danno aquiliano. Milan: Giuffrè, 2002.

Cursi, Floriana M. Danno e responsabilità extracontrattuale nella storia del diritto privato. Naples: Jovene, 2010.

du Plessis, Paul J. “Damaging a Slave.” In Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, edited by Andrew Burrows, David Johnston, and Reinhard Zimmermann, 157-166. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Fargnoli, Iole. Ricerche in tema di furtum: qui sciens indebitum accipit. Milan: Giuffrè, 2006.

Frier, Bruce W.

Gimenez Candela, Teresa. Los llamados cuasidelitos. Madrid: Trivium, 1999.

Harries, Jill D. Law and Crime in the Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Kaser, Max. Das romische Privatrecht. Vol. I, Das altromische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht, 609-633. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck Verlag, 1971.

Mommsen, Theodor. Romisches Strafrecht. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1899. Mousourakis, George. Fundamentals of Roman Private Law, 251-271. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 2012.

Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law, 207-227. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Nippel, Wilfried. Public Order in Ancient Rome. Cambridge and New York: Cam­bridge University Press, 1995.

Paricio Serrano, Javier, ed. Derecho romano de obligaciones. Homenaje al profesor Jose Luis Murga Gener. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Ramon Areces, 1994.

Polay, Elemer. Iniuria Types in Roman Law. Translated by Jozsef Szabo. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1986.

Robinson, Olivia F. The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Robinson, Olivia F. Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.

Santalucia, Bernardo. Diritto e processo penale nell'antica Roma. 2nd ed. Milan: Giuffrè, 1998.

Schulz, Fritz. Classical Roman Law, 572-609. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

Sirks, Boudewijn. “Delicts.” In The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, edited by David Johnston, 246-271. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thomas, J. A. C. Textbook of Roman Law, 349-383. Amsterdam, New York, and Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1976.

Watson, Alan. The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Zimmermann, Reinhard. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, 902-1142. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.