Corruption of Slaves
Delictual liability arose when a person, with wicked intent, corrupted a slave such that the slave was made worse.[2620] There was no liability unless the slave was actually made worse.[2621] There was a broad range of ways in which a slave could be corrupted:
He also makes a slave worse who persuades him to commit an injury or a theft, or to run away, or to stir up another’s slave, to mismanage his peculium, or to become a lover, or to stray, or to become devoted to evil arts, or to spend too much time at public spectacles, or to become seditious.
The same is true if, by money or words, he persuades a factor to tamper with or falsify his master’s accounts, or also to confuse accounts that have been entrusted to him...[2622]or if he makes him extravagant or argumentative, or he persuades him to submit to sexual immorality.[2623]
This could potentially overlap with other delicts. For example, a person who concealed a slave he had persuaded to run away would be liable also for theft of the slave.[2624] Depending on what had been done, there might also be liability under the lex Aquilia[2625] or for iniuria.[2626]
Liability was for double the loss caused.[2627] This was based notjust on the reducÂtion in the value of the slave, but on all losses, for example the value of things lost by the corrupted slave's theft.[2628] It did not extend, however, to subsequent wrongs, for example where the wrongdoing that had been encouraged became a habit.[2629]
E.