Iniuria Suffered by a Slave?
Iniuria Suffered by a Slave?

Summary/Abstract: The dissonance between the perception of edictum de iniuriis quae servis fiunt on Ulpian’s and Gaius’ part is so significant that it can lead to a conclusion that a deed done to a slave – even if not always, what seems the most probable, certainly in most cases – qualified only as an insult harming the slave’s owner, whereas a would-be actio servi nomine was de facto not in use. As an infringement of a slave could additionally give rise to an owner’s entitlement to plead for damages according to the Aquilian regime, it seems that practical use of the edictal clause with regard to actio servi nomine, even if possible to take place at a certain level of legal development of the delict, was of minor importance. However, recognizing the main role of the edict in providing a modern and flexible basis for bringing praetorial actio iniuriarum suo nomine in a case of iniuria suffered through one’s slave, not limited to decemviral instances of os fractum and membrum ruptum, appears to be the most probable interpretation.

• Details
• Contents