- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:9.2.31.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
This section discusses the liability for causing the death of a passerby during high-altitude work, defining the scope of liability for negligence or intent depending on the warning given and the nature of the path (public, private, or non-existent).
[IDEM libro decimo ad Sabinum.]
[THE SAME, in the tenth book on Sabinus.]
Si putator ex arbore ramum cum deiceret uel machinarius hominem praetereuntem occidit, ita tenetur, si1 is in publicum decidat nec ille proclamauit, ut casus eius euitari possit. sed Mucius etiam dixit, si in priuato idem accidisset, posse de culpa agi:2 culpam autem esse, quod cum a diligente prouideri poterit, non esset prouisum3 aut tum denuntiatum esset, cum periculum euitari non possit. secundum quam rationem non multum refert, per publicum an per priuatum iter fieret, cum plerumque per priuata loca uolgo iter fiat. quod si nullum iter erit, dolum dumtaxat praestare debet, ne immittat4 in eum, quem uiderit transeuntem: nam culpa ab eo exigenda non est, cum diuinare non potuerit, an per eum locum aliquis transiturus sit.
If a pruner, when throwing down a branch from a tree, or a scaffolder has killed a passing man, he is held liable only if the object falls into a public place and he did not cry out a warning so that its fall could be avoided. But Mucius also said that if the same thing had happened on private property, an action for negligence could be brought; and that negligence consists in this, that what could have been foreseen by a diligent person was not foreseen, or that a warning was given only at such a time when the danger could not be avoided. According to this reasoning, it does not matter much whether the passage was through a public or a private way, since commonly passage is made frequently through private places. But if there is no path, he ought to be liable only for intent, so that he does not throw anything upon one whom he has seen passing; for negligence is not to be demanded of him, since he could not have divined whether anyone was about to pass through that place.
- 9.2.31.prita tenetur, si
The correlative ita ... si indicates a restrictive condition ('only if' or 'on the condition that'), rather than a simple conditional clause.
- 9.2.31.prposse de culpa agi
An accusative with infinitive (A.C.I.) construction inside the indirect speech introduced by Mucius dixit. The impersonal passive infinitive de culpa agi (that action is brought concerning negligence) serves as the complement of posse, with no grammatical subject expressed.
- 9.2.31.prculpam autem esse, quod cum a diligente prouideri poterit, non esset prouisum
The entire clause is an A.C.I. governed by dixit (subject culpam, verb esse). The quod clause functions as an appositive explaining culpam. Within it, the cum clause has poterit in the future indicative (or a variant for potuerit), while the main verb non esset prouisum is in the pluperfect subjunctive, either due to oblique subordination in indirect speech or to represent a counterfactual situation ('what was not foreseen, though it could have been').
- 9.2.31.prdolum dumtaxat praestare debet, ne immittat
The ne immittat clause, which normally expresses purpose or prohibition, here functions appositively or substantively to define the content of dolum (intent), i.e., 'not throwing [the object] upon [the passerby]'.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-11-15)
- 2026-11-15 AI review — note 1