The case of a slave whose throat was cut by a barber when a ball was thrown against his hand was widely discussed in antiquity. Ulp. D. 9.2.11 pr. describes the case and suggests three possible solutions, considering the last to be the best. Ulpian asserted that the barber was not liable, because the slave should have realised that it was not appropriate to be shaved close to a place where people were playing ball. However, the Basilics (B. 60.3.11) and especially the scholium of Hagiotheodorita argued that denying the barber's liability was not an equitable solution, because both the barber and the player who kicked the ball could have been liable. According to Hagiotheodorita, a better solution would be to hold at least the barber responsible. The joint liability of more than one person ("Quotenteilungsprinzip"), which several European legal systems adopt today in similar cases, was not permissible in Roman formulary procedure. However, Mela's solution in Ulp. D. 9.2.11 pr. seems to tend in that direction.

Die durchschnittene Kehle / I. Fargnoli. - In: FUNDAMINA. - ISSN 1021-545X. - 20:1(2014), pp. 275-286.

Die durchschnittene Kehle

I. Fargnoli
Primo
2014

Abstract

The case of a slave whose throat was cut by a barber when a ball was thrown against his hand was widely discussed in antiquity. Ulp. D. 9.2.11 pr. describes the case and suggests three possible solutions, considering the last to be the best. Ulpian asserted that the barber was not liable, because the slave should have realised that it was not appropriate to be shaved close to a place where people were playing ball. However, the Basilics (B. 60.3.11) and especially the scholium of Hagiotheodorita argued that denying the barber's liability was not an equitable solution, because both the barber and the player who kicked the ball could have been liable. According to Hagiotheodorita, a better solution would be to hold at least the barber responsible. The joint liability of more than one person ("Quotenteilungsprinzip"), which several European legal systems adopt today in similar cases, was not permissible in Roman formulary procedure. However, Mela's solution in Ulp. D. 9.2.11 pr. seems to tend in that direction.
Settore IUS/18 - Diritto Romano e Diritti dell'Antichita'
2014
http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/funda/funda_si1_part1_2014_a27.pdf
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
funda_si1_part1_2014_a27.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 272.46 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
272.46 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/255055
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact