<<
>>

INIURIA

The action for iniuria, which can be translated as “contempt” or “insult”, lay for insulting behaviour of all kinds. This was a wide-ranging delict, covering for example assault, “vocal attack” (convicium), defamatory writings, seizure of the victim’s goods as if he were an insolvent debtor, and what would in modern terms be considered stalking or sexual harassment.

The central idea was that the behaviour complained of constituted an affront to the victim’s honour. For this reason, one might also have an action for insults to one’s family members. For example, where a woman was the victim of an iniuria, in addition to her own action her husband and paterfamilias also had an action. A wife was not, however, considered to suffer iniuria when her husband was insulted. A slave could not suffer iniuria, but the master could be insulted through the slave. This would only be the case, though, with serious conduct, “manifestly in contempt of the owner” (J.4.4.3). Thus, flogging another’s slave was iniuria to the master, but the case where “someone abuses a slave vocally or strikes him with a fist” (J.4.4.3) would not be.

An action for iniuria could also arise where the insulting behaviour com­plained of was directed at a deceased person. The action would lie in favour of the heir of the deceased:

“And if, as it happens, iniuria is inflicted on the corpse of a dead person from whom we have inherited or received possession of the estate, we have the action on iniuria in our own name; for it concerns our reputation if iniuria is inflicted on the corpse. Likewise also if the reputation is attacked of a person from whom we have inherited.” (Ulpian, D.47.10.1.4)

Liability did not arise unless the insult was unjustifiable. The law did not protect against justifiable insults. Thus, if it could be shown that a de­famatory statement was true, no action would lie.

There had to be an intention to insult. Where the insulting behaviour occurred accidentally, or even negligently, no liability arose. Thus, if A accidentally or carelessly knocked B over, B would not be considered to have suffered iniuria. If A had done this intentionally, however, he would be liable, assuming the other requirements for the delict were met. Equally, if A struck B as a joke or during a wrestling match, there would be no liability for iniuria. Again, in the example given earlier of a person’s goods seized as if he were a debtor, one who initiated such a process believing a debt to be due would not be guilty of iniuria. Such a person would be liable only if he knew that there was nothing owing.

The final requirement is that the victim must have suffered upset. If the victim let the insult pass, he could not subsequently change his mind and revive the insult. In practical terms, therefore, the action for iniuria would have to be raised as soon after the insult as was reasonably practicable.

<< | >>
Source: Anderson Craig. Roman Law Essentials. Edinburgh University Press,2018. — 144 p.. 2018
More legal literature on Laws.Studio

More on the topic INIURIA:

  1. 3. Injury (Iniuria)
  2. INIURIA
  3. Requirements for Liability
  4. CASE 235: Sexual Harassment
  5. B Right to act legally on behalf of oneself or ones family
  6. CASE 142: Wrongs against Children-in-Powerstyle='font-weight:bold'>
  7. PRAETORIAN DELICTS
  8. CASE 27: An Affront to the Fiancée
  9. THE LOSS OF SPIRITUAL WISDOM
  10. Introduction