Bringing a Claim
(1) The Identity of the Pursuer
The remedy was not necessarily limited solely to the person who was directly insulted. A paterfamilias could have an action for iniuria for an insult to any of his children[2521] or to his daughter-in-law.
A husband could have an action where his wife was insulted,[2522] in addition to her own action.[2523]The right of the paterfamilias was paramount. If the person actually insulted wanted to sue, but his or her paterfamilias did not, normally this excluded any remedy. It was only if the paterfamilias was ‘vile and abject, while the son is a decent man',[2524] that the paterfamilias would not be allowed to value the insult by his own standards. The child in power would then be allowed to proceed. OthÂerwise, the decision of the paterfamilias would stand.
Where an insult was directed at a slave, the master could potentially sue for iniuria. Unlike the position with children in power, however, this was not the case for all insults. The master only had a remedy where the insult was directed at a slave ‘where something atrocious occurs, manifestly in contempt of the master'.[2525] Thus there would be a remedy for a severe beating or flogging, but not simply for verbal abuse or striking with a fist. The slave could not be insulted personally,[2526] and so had no remedy even if later freed.[2527]
(2) Specification of Claim
When bringing the action for iniuria, the pursuer was required to state the precise basis for the claim: ‘he who brings an action for iniuria must state precisely what has been done that constitutes iniuria’.[2528] [2529] The reason for this was that a person found to have committed iniuria thereby incurred infamiaf The legal and social consequences of this being comparatively severe, the defender was therefore entitled to expect detailed notice of what he or she was alleged to have done in order to be able to defend his or her reputation. (3) Liability Liability for iniuria was restricted to one year from the alleged insult.[2530] Of course, it is highly likely that someone who did not take action before that time would be held to have let the insult go anyway. Damages for iniuria were not based on financial loss, but on the nature and seriousness of the insult. Everyone who took part in the insulting behaviour,[2531] or who even encouraged it,[2532] was separately liable. The pursuer could claim damages based on his or her own assessment of the insult. The judge, though, was not bound by this, and could award a lower sum if he thought appropriate.[2533] In setting the damages payable, thejudge was entiÂtled to take into account any aggravating factor. An insult could be aggravated by the identity of the persons involved.[2534] For example, an insult was considered more serious if committed against a person of higher status.[2535] An insult to a person to whom the defender owed a duty of respect, such as a magistrate, parent or patron,[2536] was considered more serious.[2537] An assault on a slave holding a responsible position was considered more serious than one on a slave not holding such a position.[2538] An insult could also be aggravated by the time or place in which it happened.[2539] Thus, an insult committed in a public place was considered more serious.[2540] Finally, an insult could be aggravated by its own nature,[2541] for example when an assault resulted in a serious wound or was on the pursuer's face rather than body.[2542] D.