- 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-lat1:9.2.32.pr-9.2.32.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
The text discusses whether the limitation of liability applied in actions for theft committed by a household of slaves should also apply to actions for wrongful damage, and explains the number of delicts when a slave is first wounded and subsequently killed.
[GAIUS libro septimo ad edictum prouinciale.]
[GAIUS, in the seventh book on the provincial edict.]
Illud quaesitum est, an quod proconsul in furto obseruat quod a familia factum sit (id est ut non in singulos detur poenae persecutio, sed sufficeret id praestari, quod praestandum foret, si id furtum unus liber fecisset),1 debeat et in actione damni iniuriae obseruari.2 sed magis uisum est idem esse obseruandum, et merito: cum enim circa furti actionem haec ratio sit, ne ex uno delicto tota familia dominus careat eaque ratio similiter et in actionem damni iniuriae interueniat, sequitur, ut idem debeat aestimari, praesertim cum interdum leuior sit haec causa delicti, ueluti si culpa et non dolo damnum daretur.
The question has been raised whether that which the proconsul observes in the case of a theft committed by a household of slaves (that is, that an action for a penalty is not granted against each individual slave, but it is sufficient to pay what would have had to be paid if a single free person had committed that theft) ought also to be observed in an action for wrongful damage. But the view has rather prevailed that the same rule should be observed, and rightly so: for since in the case of the action for theft this is the reason, namely, that the owner should not lose his entire household of slaves because of a single delict, and since that reason likewise applies to the action for wrongful damage, it follows that the same estimation ought to be made, especially since sometimes this cause of delict is lighter, as for example if damage is caused by negligence and not by intent.
Si idem eundem seruum uulnerauerit, postea deinde etiam occiderit, tenebitur et de uulnerato et de occiso: duo enim sunt delicta. aliter atque si quis uno impetu pluribus uulneribus aliquem occiderit: tunc enim una erit actio de occiso.
If the same person has wounded the same slave, and afterwards has also killed him, he will be held liable both for wounding him and for killing him; for there are two delicts. It is otherwise than if someone has killed another with several wounds in a single assault; for then there will be only a single action for the killing.
- 9.2.32.prsufficeret id praestari, quod praestandum foret, si id furtum unus liber fecisset
A contrary-to-fact conditional construction. The pluperfect subjunctive in the condition si... fecisset (past contrary-to-fact) is paired with the imperfect subjunctive sufficeret in the result clause and foret (an alternative form of esset) in the relative clause, representing a present contrary-to-fact situation or adjusted to the hypothetical context.
- 9.2.32.pran quod proconsul in furto obseruat quod a familia factum sit ... debeat ... obseruari
The structure has the relative clause quod proconsul... obseruat acting as the subject of the indirect question introduced by an (ending in debeat... obseruari). The whole phrase means "whether that which the proconsul observes... ought also to be observed...".