This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.(February 2012)
Damnum iniuria datum was a delict of Roman law relating to the wrongful damage to property. It was created by the Lex Aquilia in the third century BC, and consisted of two parts: chapter one, which dealt with the killing of another's slave or certain types of animal; and chapter three which related to other types of property. It was widely extended both by reference to the words of the statute themselves and by the Praetor.
Delict is a term in civil law jurisdictions for a civil wrong consisting of an intentional or negligent breach of duty of care that inflicts loss or harm and which triggers legal liability for the wrongdoer; however, its meaning varies from one jurisdiction to another. Other civil wrongs include breach of contract and breach of trust. Liability is imposed on the basis of moral responsibility, i.e. a duty of care or to act, and fault (culpa) is the main element of liability. The term is used in mixed legal systems such as Scotland, South Africa, Louisiana and the Philippines, but tort is the equivalent legal term used in common law jurisdictions.
Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables, to the Corpus Juris Civilis ordered by Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I. Roman law forms the basic framework for civil law, the most widely used legal system today, and the terms are sometimes used synonymously. The historical importance of Roman law is reflected by the continued use of Latin legal terminology in many legal systems influenced by it, including common law.
The lex Aquilia was a Roman law which provided compensation to the owners of property injured by someone's fault, set in the 3rd century BC, in the Roman Republic. This law protected Roman citizens from some forms of theft, vandalism, and destruction of property.
Like similar concepts in the modern law, it had to deal with changes in the way negligence was dealt with, issues of omission, and those of causation.
Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.
Basic form
Damnum iniuria datum can be considered wrongful damage to property.[1] The law of the Empire on this topic is mainly based on the Lex Aquilia, of which the date is uncertain, but earlier than the introduction of the contract of mandate. It does not seem that, as the Institutes rather suggest, and the Digest actually says, it superseded earlier provisions as matter of law, but it was of overwhelming practical importance and seems to have swamped them. On the other hand there was praetorian legislation on the matter, apart from extensions of this statute. But it is plain that this law. with its extensions, was much the most important part of the scheme of remedies. The words damnum iniuria datum mean damage unlawfully caused, but we get the expression actio damni iniuriae.[1]
The Roman Empire was the post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization. An Iron Age civilization, it had a government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. From the constitutional reforms of Augustus to the military anarchy of the third century, the Empire was a principate ruled from the city of Rome. The Roman Empire was then divided between a Western Roman Empire, based in Milan and later Ravenna, and an Eastern Roman Empire, based in Nicomedia and later Constantinople, and it was ruled by multiple emperors.
The Lex Aquilia contained, besides a penalty for adstipulatores who fraudulently released the debtor and, perhaps, a vaguely indicated procedure for multa as an alternative, in the case which does concern us, two important provisions for a civil remedy for damage to property. Its first chapter provided that anyone who unlawfully killed another's slave or beast within the class of pecus, was liable to pay the owner the highest value the thing had had within the previous year.[1] Its third chapter provided that anyone who unlawfully damaged another's property in respects not the coming under the first chapter, by burning, breaking or destroying, was liable to pay him the value the thing had had within 30 days before.[2] The period of time was reckoned back, not from the death, but from the injury. The third chapter did not, like the first, say the highest ("plurimi") value within the 30 days, but the lawyers read this in, in order to give the provision a meaning. So far as the main text goes a man who merely damaged the property had to pay the whole value, but, apart from the bad economics of such a rule, there is a text which implies that what he had to pay was the difference between the highest value and the value after the damage.[3]
Elements
The actio legis Aquiliae was a penal action with the ordinary consequence that it did not lie against the heres, except to the extent of his enrichment, that it was not extinguished by capitis deminutio, and that each of joint wrongdoers was liable in full. It was penal as to the whole of the damages and not merely as to the excess over the harm done, and as there often would be no such excess, it might, like the actio doli, be penal where what was paid was merely compensation.[3] It was penal also in the sense that it was for double damages in case of denial, but this alone did not cause an action to be regarded as penal. The rule that it was duplex contra infitiantem, a result of the original manus iniectio, raises the question whether denial was of the facts or of liability. We are told that one who confesses the fact of killing could not afterwards deny liability, but might prove that the man was not dead, or died from natural causes. The text describes the action in which he has confessed the fact as confessoria.[3]
The damage must be unlawful, but need not be wilful; negligence was enough. But the negligence must be active; mere omission did not suffice.[3] Cases which look like exceptions, as of one who, having lit a fire, neglected to look after it, so that it spread to the next property, were cases in which an act was done with insufficient attention to consequences.[4] The strongest case is that in which A lit a fire and B watched it negligently. B was liable. But he was not a casual passer without privity; he was one who had done something to make himself responsible. In most of the cases of this type the remedy was not the action itself, but a praetorian extension.[5]
The negligence need not be extreme; slight negligence created the liability. This rule raises the question, where there was a contract between the parties in which culpa did not create liability, e.g. deposit, whether damage caused by negligence created the Aquilian liability. There is no decisive text and both views are held. The dominant opinion is that the liability existed.[5]
Contributory negligence of the aggrieved person might be a defence. This is sometimes misleadingly called "culpa-compensation," which suggests both some sort of quantitative relation between them, and the notion of damage to the defendant by the plaintiff, neither of which notions has anything to do with the matter. The true principle is one of causal connexion. The causal nexus was broken if there intervened, between the culpa of the defendant and the damage, some other cause without which the damage would not have occurred. Where a man wounded another not mortally, who died in consequence of being neglected, he was liable for the wounding but not for the death. But if the original act was wilful it is generally held, though there is no explicit text, that intervening negligence of the injured person was no defence, though there was the same breach of causal nexus.[5] The texts dealing with the case where the intervening event was a wrongful act of a third person present some difficulty, but their doctrine seems to be as follows: Where a slave, wounded by A and then by B, died, if each act would certainly have killed, A had wounded, B had killed. If several wounded and it was clear which killed, he alone was liable for the killing. If it was not made out that one killed, more than another, all were liable for killing. If it was clear that A's wound would have killed, but not clear whether B's would or not, apart from A's previous act, both were liable. But there is much controversy on this. It is generally held that the texts cannot be reconciled.[5]
The statute was at first very narrowly construed. At one time it seems that it was inferred from the etymology of the word "occido" that the act must have been done directly by the person of the wrongdoer or a weapon held by him.[6] But the early lawyers extended this to killing by, e.g., actually administering poison.[7] The rule so understood was expressed in the words that it must be "corpori corpore", by the wrongdoer's body to that of the injured thing. Another extension made at civil law by interpretatio, was to understand "rumpere" in the third chapter to mean "corrumpere", so that it covered any form of material damage and the other words became unimportant.[7] Further, in construing the words "highest value" the jurists included what is called "damnum emergens," loss due to extrinsic circumstances, and "lucrum cessans", profit which the fact prevented the owner from making. The killing of one horse of a pair, of one of a troupe of actors, are instances of the first, as the loss was greater than the value of the thing as a single thing. The second is illustrated by loss of a hereditas on which the slave would have entered. But it must be a material loss: value of affection was not taken into account. Though the statute applied only to res mobiles, its application was extended to land.[7]
Even so extended, the statute was extremely narrow.[7]
Praetorian extensions
It was left to the praetor to make further extensions, not of the action itself, but by providing analogous remedies for analogous cases.[7]
Firstly, the lex applied only where the aggrieved person was the dominus. The praetor provided an actio utilis, or one in factum, to persons with lesser property rights in the thing, e.g. the usufructuary, alongside the owner. Damages would be based on the value of the interest. A bona fide possessor had the action for the full value, but if ultimately sued by the owner, must give up what he had recovered. Under Justinian, but probably not before, a pledgee had it if the debtor was insolvent, or if he had from any cause lost his personal claim against the debtor. In all these cases it lay against the owner himself, as an actio in factum.[7] Secondly, leges did not in themselves apply to persons who were not true Roman citizens but an actio ficticia was given in this case for others.[8] Thirdly, the lex covered only cases of property. Injury of a freeman was thus not within it, as a man was not considered to own his body. The praetor gave an actio utilis to a freeman who, or whose filiusfamilias, had been injured, but not where a freeman was killed.[8]
Lastly, the lex applied only where the damage was done by the body to the body, corpore corpori. The praetor gave an action, utilis or in factum where it was by but not to the body, as by throwing grain into a river: it might not be harmed, but in effect it was destroyed.[8] So too where it was to, but not by, the body, as where one put poison where a slave was likely to take it, but not actually administering it. So too where it was neither, as by opening a stable door so that animals escaped and were lost. It is easy to see that these lines might be difficult to draw. There is no great difference between mixing the seed in the sower's bag, which gives the direct action, and sowing false seed after him which does not. The line between actually administering poison and merely facilitating the taking might be rather fine.[8]
In some of these cases an actio utilis was given; in others an actio in factum.[8] Gaius tells us that it was utilis wherever it was not corpore, but the Institutes say that if it was not corpore or corpori the action was in factum, which would make it utilis if it was corpore but not corpori. When we turn to the texts in the Digest it is difficult to make them conform to any rule. Even the direct action is given in cases which seem to be more appropriate to one of the others, and as between these, any logical scheme is unattainable. This may be because the question was one of procedure, never very important, and practically obsolete in the time of Justinian. In view of the words "reddendo actiones in factum accommodatas legi Aquiliae, idque utilitas huius legis exigit", it is to be doubted whether any distinction is intended.[8]
Related Research Articles
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated." Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability. Claimants can prove liability through a myriad of different theories, known as theories of liability. Which theories of liability are available in a given case depends on nature of the law in question. For example, in case involving a contractual dispute, one available theory of liability is breach of contract; or in the tort context, negligence, negligence per se, respondeat superior, vicarious liability, strict liability, or intentional conduct are all valid theories of liability.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Rylands v Fletcher[1868] UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas. The majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, however, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher"; that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". No right "to enjoy property" exists in UK black letter law, and it is this decision upon which stare decisis is built in the area.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[1970] UKHL 2, [1970] AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.
Volenti non fit iniuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."
The history of Roman Law can be divided into three systems of procedure: that of legis actiones, the formulary system, and cognitio extra ordinem. The periods in which these systems were in use overlapped one another and did not have definitive breaks, but it can be stated that the legis actio system prevailed from the time of the XII Tables until about the end of the 2nd century BC, that the formulary procedure was primarily used from the last century of the Republic until the end of the classical period, and that of cognitio extra ordinem was in use in post-classical times.
In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.
In law, damnum absque injuria is a phrase expressing the principle of tort law in which some person causes damage or loss to another, but does not injure them. For example, opening a burger stand near someone else's may cause them to lose customers, but this in itself does not give rise to a cause of action for the original burger stand owner.
Ius privatum is Latin for private law. Contrasted with ius publicum, ius privatum regulated the relations between individuals. In Roman law this included personal, property and civil law. Judicial proceeding was a private process. Criminal law was also considered private matters, except where the crimes were particularly severe.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law:
South Australia Asset Management Corpn v York Montague Ltd and Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 is a joined English contract law case on causation remoteness of damage. It arose out of the property crash in the early 1990s, whereby banks were suing valuers for overpricing houses in order to recover the lost market value. Owners themselves had often little or no money, since they had fallen victim to negative equity, so mortgage lenders would pursue a valuer instead to recover some losses.
Rapina – theft with violence – was a delict of Roman law.
The South African law of delict engages primarily with "the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered." JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict "in general terms [...] as a civil wrong," and more narrowly as "wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person." Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.
The actio iniuriarum is an action for delict which "not only seeks to protect an individual's dignity and reputation but also his or her physical integrity."
Furtum was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio ("handling") of most types of property with a particular sort of intention – fraud and in the later law, a view to gain. It is unclear whether a view to gain was always required or added later, and, if the latter, when. This meant that the owner did not consent, although Justinian broadened this in at least one case. The law of furtum protected a variety of property interests, but not land, things without an owner, or types of state or religious things. An owner could commit theft by taking his things back in certain circumstances, as could a borrower or similar user through misuse.
In Roman law, contracts could be divided between those in re, those that were consensual, and those that were innominate contracts in Roman law. Although Gaius only identifies a single type of contract in re, it is commonly thought that there were four, as Justinian identifies: mutuum, commodatum, depositum (deposit) and pignus (pledge).
Iniuria was a delict in Roman law for the outrage caused by a false statement made against another person.
Hall v Hebert is a leading tort law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the defences of contributory negligence and ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
