Chapter Summary
Liability for the delict of iniuria was based on the defender having, contrary to good morals (contra bonos mores), injured the pursuer in body, dignity or reputation. The delict was concerned with the pursuer's feelings rather than financial loss: the offensiveness of the conduct complained of was the focus.
The insult could be indirect, for example in certain circumstances where the immediate victim was the pursuer's wife, child or slave. This is an area of Roman law that has influenced modern Scots law, but in which the Roman influence has been somewhat lost sight of. It may well have continuing potential as a source of legal ideas.Further Reading
G.3.220-5
J.4.4
D.47.10
C.9.35
P Birks, The Roman Law of Obligations (E Descheemaeker ed, Oxford University Press 2014) chapter 10
J Blackie, ‘Defamation' in R Zimmermann and K Reid eds, A History of Private Law in Scotland, Volume II: Obligations (Oxford University Press 2000)
J Brown, ‘The Defamation and Malicious Publications (Scotland) Bill: an undignified approach to law reform?' 2020 SLT (News) 131
E Descheemaeker and H Scott eds, Iniuria and the Common Law (Hart 2013)
B W Frier, A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict (Scholars Press 1989) chapter V part B
E Metzger ed, A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes (Duckworth 1998) 192—7
N R Whitty and R Zimmermann eds, Rights of Personality in Scots Law: A Comparative Perspective (Dundee University Press 2009)
R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) chapter 31