[GAIUS libro nono ad edictum prouinciale. ] §13.6.18.prIn rebus commodatis talis diligentia praestanda est, qualem quisque diligentissimus pater familias suis rebus adhibet, ita ut tantum eos casus non praestet, quibus resisti non possit, ueluti mortes seruorum quae sine dolo et culpa eius accidunt, latronum hostiumue incursus, piratarum insidias, naufragium, incendium, fugas seruorum qui custodiri non solent.
[GAIUS in the ninth book on the Provincial Edict.]\n\nIn a loan for use, such diligence must be shown as the most diligent head of a family applies to his own affairs, so that he is not liable only for those accidents which cannot be resisted, such as the deaths of slaves which happen without his fraud and negligence, incursions of robbers or enemies, ambushes of pirates, shipwreck, fire, or the escapes of slaves who are not accustomed to be guarded.
quod autem de latronibus et piratis et naufragio diximus, ita scilicet accipiemus, si in hoc commodata sit alicui res, ut eam rem peregre secum ferat: alioquin si cui ideo argentum commodauerim, quod is amicos ad cenam inuitaturum se diceret, et id peregre secum portauerit, sine ulla dubitatione etiam piratarum et latronum et naufragii casum praestare debet.
But what we have said of robbers, pirates, and shipwreck, we shall of course understand in this way, if a thing was lent to someone for this purpose, that he should carry it abroad with him; otherwise, if I lent silver to someone because he said he was going to invite friends to dinner, and he carried it abroad with him, without any doubt he ought to be liable even for the accident of pirates, robbers, and shipwreck.
haec ita, si dumtaxat accipientis gratia commodata sit res.
This is so, if the thing was lent solely for the benefit of the receiver.
at si utriusque, ueluti si communem amicum ad cenam inuitauerimus tuque eius rei curam suscepisses et ego tibi argentum commodauerim, scriptum quidem apud quosdam inuenio, quasi dolum tantum praestare debeas: sed uidendum est, ne et culpa praestanda sit, ut ita culpae fiat aestimatio, sicut in rebus pignori datis et dotalibus aestimari solet. §13.6.18.1Siue autem pignus siue commoda res siue deposita deterior ab eo qui acceperit facta sit, non solum istae sunt actiones, de quibus loquimur, uerum etiam legis Aquiliae: sed si qua earum actum fuerit, aliae tolluntur. §13.6.18.2Possunt iustae causae interuenire, ex quibus cum eo qui commodasset agi deberet: ueluti de impensis in ualetudinem serui factis quaeue post fugam requirendi reducendique eius causa factae essent: nam cibariorum impensae naturali scilicet ratione ad eum pertinent, qui utendum accepisset.
But if for the benefit of both, as for example if we invited a common friend to dinner and you undertook the care of that matter and I lent you silver, I find indeed written in some authors as if you ought to be liable only for fraud; but we must consider whether liability for negligence should also be shown, so that the assessment of negligence is made just as it is accustomed to be assessed in things given in pledge and as dowry.\n\nBut whether a pledge, a lent thing, or a deposit is made worse by him who received it, not only are these actions available which we are speaking of, but also that of the Lex Aquilia; but if an action is brought on any of them, the others are barred.\n\nJust causes can intervene from which an action ought to be brought against him who lent, such as for expenses incurred for the medical treatment of a slave, or those incurred after his escape for the purpose of searching for and bringing him back; for the expenses of food, by natural reason of course, belong to him who had received it for use.
sed et id, quod de impensis ualetudinis aut fugae diximus, ad maiores impensas pertinere debet: modica enim impendia uerius est, ut sicuti cibariorum ad eundem pertineant. §13.6.18.3Item qui sciens uasa uitiosa commodauit, si ibi infusum uinum uel oleum corruptum effusumue est, condemnandus eo nomine est.
But also what we have said concerning the expenses of treatment or escape ought to apply to larger expenses; for it is more correct that moderate expenses, just like those of food, belong to the same person.\n\nLikewise, he who knowingly lent defective vessels, if wine or oil poured therein is spoiled or spilled, must be condemned on that account.\n\nBut what anyone can obtain by a counter-action, he can also keep safe by right of set-off in a direct action brought against him.
§13.6.18.4Quod autem contrario iudicio consequi quisque potest, id etiam recto iudicio, quo cum eo agitur, potest saluum habere iure pensationis. sed fieri potest, ut amplius esset, quod inuicem aliquem consequi oporteat, aut iudex pensationis rationem non habeat, aut ideo de restituenda re cum eo non agatur, quia ea res casu intercidit aut sine iudice restituta est: dicemus necessariam esse contrariam actionem.
But it can happen that what one ought to obtain in return is of a larger amount, or that the judge does not take account of the set-off, or that no action is brought against him for the restoration of the thing because that thing has perished by accident or has been restored without a judge; we shall say that a counter-action is necessary.