Chapter Summary
The Romans relied, as we have seen, on a system of discrete nominate delicts rather than on a general principle of liability for wrongdoing. We have considered the most important two delicts, concerned with liability under the lex Aquilia and the actio iniuriarum, in the previous two chapters.
There were numerous others, however. The institutional scheme, which only covers two further delicts, is misleading here. These two, theft and robbery, have been considered together in this chapter on the basis that robbery is essentially theft committed by force. In this chapter, we have also considered a number of other grounds of delictual liability, namely corruption of slaves, deceit, coercion and damage by animals.Further Reading
G.3.183-209
J.4.1.1-19; 4.2
D.9.1; 47.2
C.2.19-20; 6.2
P Birks, The Roman Law of Obligations (E Descheemaeker ed, Oxford University Press 2014) chapters 7 and 8
E Metzger ed, A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes (Duckworth 1998) 175-84, 197
B W Frier, A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict (Scholars Press 1989) chapters IV V (part A) and VI
G Glover, ‘Metus in the Roman Law of Obligations’ (2004) 10 Fundamina 31
B S Jackson, ‘Liability for Animals in Roman Law: An Historical Sketch’ (1978) 37 Cam LJ 122
A J B Sirks, ‘Furtum and Manus/Potestas’ (2013) 81 TvR 465
A Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford University Press 1965) chapters 14 and 17
R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) chapters 28 and 32