Chapter Summary
Roman law had no general principle by which a person could be held liable for another person’s acts. Unlike the position in modern law, a person was normally only liable for his or her own acts.
However, there were certain special cases where this was not the case. A slave-owner or paterfamilias could be held liable under transactions entered into by a slave orfiliusfamilias which the owner or paterfamilias had authorised (either specifically or generally). In the absence of such authorisation, the owner or paterfamilias could be held liable under transactions entered into by the slave or filiusfamilias up to the value of any peculium held by the latter. In addition, the slave-owner or paterfamilias could be ‘noxally’ liable for wrongs committed by the slave orfiliusfamilias, and was faced with the choice of either paying appropriate damages for the wrongdoing or surrendering the slave or (until post-classical law) the filiusfamilias to the victim.Further Reading
G.4.69-81
J.4.7-8
D.9.4; 14.3-5; 15
C.3.41
J-J Aubert, ‘Dumtaxat depeculio: What's in a Peculium, or Establishing the Extent of the Principal's Liability' in P J du Plessis ed, New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World (Edinburgh University Press 2013)
R van den Bergh, ‘“He's the One Who Minds the Boss's Business...”' (2015) 21 Fundamina 359
B W Frier and T AJ McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law (Oxford University Press 2004) 240-96
W M Gordon, ‘Agency and Roman Law' in Roman Law, Scots Law and Legal History: Selected Essays (Edinburgh University Press 2007)
D Johnston, ‘Peculiar Questions' in P McKechnie ed, Thinking like a Lawyer: Essays on Legal History and General History for John Crook on His Eightieth Birthday (Brill 2002)
DJohnston, ‘Suing the Paterfamilias: Theory and Practice' inJ W Cairns and P J du Plessis eds, Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (Edinburgh University Press 2007)
A Kirschenbaum, Sons, Slaves and Freedmen in Roman Commerce (Magnes Press, Hebrew University/Catholic University of America Press 1987)
G MacCormack, ‘The Later History of the “Actio de in Rem Verso” (Proculus- Ulpian)' (1982) 48 SDHI 318
R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) 51-3, 1118-20
More on the topic Chapter Summary:
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary
- Chapter Summary