Damnum iniuria datum - Lecture notes 14 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Damnum iniuria datum - Lecture notes 14 PDF

Description

Lecture 18 Damnum iniuria datum

Damnum iniuria datum Damnum iniuria datum was a delict relating to loss caused wrongfully. There were three elements: (1) Loss/harm to patrimonial assets (damnum) (2) Wrongful conduct (iniuria) (3) A causal link between the wrongful conduct and the loss (datum). Traditionally didn’t concern personal injury eg. If someone destroys a car then it is damnum inuria datum as they have negligently destroyed property. But if someone runs a person over in their car, it isn’t damnum inuria datum. (TRADTIONAL VIEW) In roman law this delict concerns damage to property. The property often consisted of slaves. Eg if someone killed your slave then it would count as damaging your property – damnum inuira datum The lex Aquilia Key source of the law Damnum iniuria datum Piece of roman legislation relating to causing people loss wrongfully Essentially confirmed very specific situations where one person killed or injured another person’s slaves or animals In time this became more generalized to do with property in general – not just slaves and animals • Damnum iniuria datum originates from Roman legislation known as the lex Aquilia (dating from the early third century BC). • It was originally very strict but became more and more flexible over time because of: -The interpretation of the lex Aquilia by jurists and -actions granted on analogy with the lex Aquilia by the praetor (magistrate) Chapter one Roman law granted an action where D had wrongfully killed P’s slave or his four-footed beast of the class of cattle. In such cases, D was liable to pay P the highest value of the slave or animal in the year preceding the killing. Eg. If A negligently killed B’s cattle which was worth £100 at time of killing, A would still be liable to pay B £200 since that was their worth at the highest in the year preceding the killing, even if it was 6 months ago and not at time of killing Rule is designed to punish the wrong do-er Punitive measure rather than a compensatory one. If it was compensatory then A would only have to pay £100

Lecture 18 Damnum iniuria datum Another reason why this was introduced is it protects pursuer from the risk of the fallen value of their goods. Still seems severe to modern legal eyes. Chapter two Irrelevant Chapter three (more important than chapter 1) Picks up cases that don’t fit into chapter 1 Chapter 1 concerns the case in which a slave or animal was killed. Chapter 3 concerns the case in which a slave or animal, or some other property, is injured or damaged. Property hasn’t been destroyed – its been damaged. For all other things besides slaves or cattle killed, Roman law granted an action to P against D where D had done any damage by wrongful burning, breaking or breaking off (urere, frangere, rumpere). In such cases, D would be liable for the highest value of the thing over the last thirty days (or, according to some scholars, the value of the thing in the next thirty days) - There is academic controversy. Some take this latter view. Same idea as chapter 1 but a time period of 30 days instead of 1 year key issues (1) What sort of conduct gave rise to liability? (2) What was meant by the need for wrongfulness (iniuria)? (3) What was meant by loss (damnum)? (4) What title did the pursuer require in order to sue in relation to the thing killed or damaged? (5) How were damages quantified?

1. What sort of conduct gave rise to liability? Initially only serious injuries were actionable under Chapter Three of the lex Aquilia but this requirement was relaxed. Wording is very specific – an old example of statutory interpretation. Romans decided to take flexible approach: the word rumpere (to break off/smash) was later interpreted as corrumpere (to spoil). – didn’t need injury to be serious in order to be held liable E.g. mixing sand with grain or spilling wine on a carpet could constitute damage under Chapter Three of the lex Aquilia.

•

Direct damage and indirect damage Chapter One of the lex Aquilia required the death of the slave or animal to be a direct result of the defender’s act. Wording of chapter one implied a direct act – killing eg. Stab to death, strangle to death

•

But this requirement was relaxed over time: -corpori corpore (to the body by the body) E.g. D stabbed P’s slave with a sword or threw a javelin at P’s horse.

•

-corpori nec corpore (to the body but not by the body) – not direct killing, but assist in killing E.g. giving poison to a slave for the slave to drink himself/herself, overdriving a mule, starving a horse and pushing someone so that they damaged the property of another.

•

Nec corpori corpore (not to the body but by the body) E.g. knocking coins out of another’s hand so the coins fall into the sea.

Lecture 18 Damnum iniuria datum Roman law says this, although not as severe or direct as the other, is still actionable •

Nec corpori nec corpore (neither to the body nor by the body) Generally not actionable but actionable in exceptional circumstances. Have to draw the line somewhere No damage = no claim Exception: ‘But if the injury is not caused by the body, nor to the body, but damage is caused in some other way, since it is not a case either for a direct action or for an action on the analogy of the statute, it has been decided that the wrongdoer may be sued by an actio in factum; for example, if a man from motives of compassion frees a slave from his fetters, thus enabling him to escape.’ (Justinian, Institutes, IV,III,16.) Economic loss doesn’t count either Damage must be physical

• •

•

• • •

• • •

Causation The question of direct damage/indirect damage just discussed can be thought of (somewhat anachronistically) as a problem relating to causation. In modern law, we sometimes say that the chain of causation was broken by a new intervening act (novus actus interveniens). If something unexpected happens, you are only liable for the part that was expected Eg. A runs B over. But B is mistreated in hospital and dies due to that. A is only liable for injuries, not the death. There has been a break in the chain of causation. We might also talk of contributory negligence on P’s part. Liability for omissions Defender had to have done something rather than nothing Generally no liability for pure omissions eg. Walking dog and see someone drowning in river but do nothing about it But it is possible that there was liability for omissions where D had assumed responsibility to P. Liability for personal injury Cannot be liable under damnum iniuria datum for personal injury initially In its original form, damnum iniuria datum related exclusively to damage to property. But what was the law where someone injured me rather than destroyed/damaged my property? Could I claim for my personal injury? -Initially, only a claim for personal injuries deliberately inflicted was allowed (under the delict of iniuria). Careless injury – damnum inuria datum -However, a claim was later allowed for negligently inflicted personal injuries under the lex Aquilia.

2. What was meant by wrongdoing? (iniuria) It meant culpa (negligence) or dolus (deliberate wrongdoing). Generally, culpa refers to failure to foresee what a reasonable man could have foreseen.

Lecture 18 Damnum iniuria datum Example: D digs a bear trap. P’s slave falls in, resulting in injury. D would have been regarded as negligent if he had dug the bear trap in a place where people were accustomed to go but not if he had dug it elsewhere. Covers both deliberate and carelessness 3. What was meant by loss? (damnum) Patrimonial (i.e. economic) loss. Different to inuria Generally speaking there had to be loss arising from damage. E.g. a slave’s leg is broken (damage). Owner suffers patrimonial loss because he loses the benefit of the slave’s services. Eg. Deprived of use to farm animal = cant make as much money Sometimes, a claim might be allowed for loss without damage (as in the case of the compassionately released slave). But this was highly exceptional. But a claim would not be allowed if there was no loss even if there was damage (e.g. a slave is given a black eye – slave can still do job = master did not suffer an economic loss) 4. What title did the pursuer require in order to sue in relation to the thing killed or damaged? Must be careful in defining who can sue Traditionally damnun inuria datum was about damage to property – in effect the only person who could sue is the owner of that property. This became more flexible as time went on. People who held subordinate real rights could also sue under this delict. Those who have an economic interest in the thing. The lex Aquilia traditionally concerned damage to property. Generally speaking, only an owner could claim under the lex Aquilia. In time, other parties were able to claim, e.g. a pledgee or the holder of a usufruct. Note also: the case of a buyer of goods destroyed by a third party after the risk had passed. Although the buyer bore this risk in that he/she still had to pay the purchase price, the seller had to assign his rights in delict to the buyer

Eg. Although buyer bares risk of the car being destroyed, under contract of sale, the seller has the claim in delict as the seller still owns the car. Seller has to give buyer his rights against the wrong doer. Seller has passed on his rights in delict to the buyer. Buyer could sue wrong doer in this situation – must be a certain procedure called an ‘asination’ before that could occur.

Lecture 18 Damnum iniuria datum

5. How were damages quantified? Under Chapter One of the lex Aquilia, D had to pay P the highest value of the thing within the preceding year. Under chapter Three of the lex Aquilia, D could claim the highest value of the thing within the preceding 30 days. But this is controversial. Some scholars (e.g. Lawson) have interpreted Chapter Three in other ways, e.g. to mean that what mattered was the value of the thing thirty days following the injury. Detailed consideration of this controversy is beyond the scope of this course. Quantification is about how much you can get from a claim. • • •

• •

•

Damnum iniuria datum was initially penal in character. Its purpose was more to punish the wrong doer than to compensate the victim. As time went on, the function of damnum iniuria datum became increasingly compensatory. Increasing emphasis on compensation of loss could sometimes work to the pursuer’s benefit: E.g. death of one of two horses that work as a team or the death of a slave who has been instituted heir before the slave’s master could authorise the slave to accept the inheritance. Summary Damnum iniuria datum (loss wrongfully caused) was a delict in Roman law. It comprised three elements: -loss (damnum) -wrongdoing (iniuria) -a causative link between the loss and the wrongdoing (datum). Over time, this delict became increasingly flexible....