[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §47.10.11.prNon solum is iniuriarum tenetur, qui fecit iniuriam, hoc est qui percussit, uerum ille quoque continetur, qui dolo fecit uel qui curauit, ut cui mala pugno percuteretur.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book fifty-seven.] Not only is he held liable for injuries who committed the injury, that is, who struck the blow, but he also is included who acted with malice, or who arranged that someone's cheek should be struck with a fist.
§47.10.11.1Iniuriarum actio ex bono et aequo est et dissimulatione aboletur.
The action for injuries is based on what is good and equitable, and is extinguished by dissimulation.
si quis enim iniuriam dereliquerit, hoc est statim passus ad animum suum non reuocauerit, postea ex paenitentia remissam iniuriam non poterit recolere.
For if anyone has disregarded an injury, that is, has not immediately upon suffering it taken it to heart, he cannot afterwards, out of regret, revive an injury that has been forgiven.
secundum haec ergo aequitas actionis omnem metum eius abolere uidetur, ubicumque contra aequum quis uenit.
Therefore, according to this, the equity of the action seems to extinguish all fear of it, wherever anyone acts contrary to equity.
proinde et si pactum de iniuria intercessit et si transactum et si iusiurandum exactum erit, actio iniuriarum non tenebit.
Accordingly, even if an agreement concerning the injury has intervened, or if a settlement has been made, or if an oath has been exacted, the action for injuries will not lie.
§47.10.11.2Agere quis iniuriarum et per se et per alium potest, ut puta procuratorem tutorem ceterosque, qui pro aliis solent interuenire.
Anyone can bring an action for injuries both by himself and through another, such as an agent, a guardian, and others who are accustomed to intervene on behalf of others.
§47.10.11.3Si mandatu meo facta sit alicui iniuria, plerique aiunt tam me qui mandaui quam eum qui suscepit iniuriarum teneri.
If an injury has been done to someone by my mandate, most authorities say that both I who mandated it and he who undertook it are held liable for injuries.
§47.10.11.4Proculus recte ait, si in hoc te conduxerim, ut iniuriam facias, cum utroque nostrum iniuriarum agi posse, quia mea opera facta sit iniuria:
Proculus rightly says that if I have hired you for this purpose, to commit an injury, an action for injuries can be brought against both of us, because the injury was committed through my agency.
§47.10.11.5Idemque ait et si filio meo mandauero, ut tibi iniuriam faciat.
And he says the same even if I have mandated my son to commit an injury against you.
§47.10.11.6Atilicinus autem ait et si persuaserim alicui alias nolenti, ut mihi ad iniuriam faciendam oboediret, posse iniuriarum mecum agi.
But Atilicinus says that even if I have persuaded someone who was otherwise unwilling to obey me in committing an injury, an action for injuries can be brought against me.
§47.10.11.7Quamquam aduersus patronum liberto iniuriarum actio non detur, uerum marito libertae nomine cum patrono actio competit: maritus enim uxore sua iniuriam passa suo nomine iniuriarum agere uidetur.
Although an action for injuries is not given to a freedman against his patron, yet an action is available to a husband in the name of his freedwoman wife against her patron; for the husband, when his wife has suffered an injury, is deemed to bring the action for injuries in his own name.
quod et Marcellus admittit.
Marcellus also admits this.
ego autem apud eum notaui non de omni iniuria hoc esse dicendum me putare: leuis enim coercitio etiam in nuptam uel conuici non inpudici dictio cur patrono denegetur? si autem conliberto nupta esset, diceremus omnino iniuriarum marito aduersus patronum cessare actionem, et ita multi sentiunt.
I, however, have noted in his work that I do not think this should be said concerning every injury; for why should a light chastisement, even against a married woman, or the uttering of a non-insolent reproach, be denied to a patron? But if she were married to a fellow freedman, we should say that the husband's action against the patron for injuries is entirely barred, and many are of this opinion.
ex quibus apparet libertos nostros non tantum eas iniurias aduersus nos iniuriarum actione exequi non posse, quaecumque fiunt ipsis, sed ne eas quidem, quae eis fiunt, quos eorum interest iniuriam non pati.
From these things it is clear that our freedmen cannot only not pursue by an action for injuries those injuries, whatever they may be, that are done to themselves, but not even those that are done to persons whom it is in their interest not to suffer injury.
§47.10.11.8Plane si forte filius liberti uel uxor uelint iniuriarum experiri: quia patri maritoue non datur, denegandum non erit, quia suo nomine experiuntur.
Clearly, if by chance the son or the wife of a freedman wishes to sue for injuries, because it is not given to the father or the husband, it must not be denied to them, because they sue in their own name.
§47.10.11.9Ei, qui seruus dicitur seque adserit in libertatem, iniuriarum actionem aduersus dicentem se dominum competere nulla dubitatio est.
There is no doubt that an action for injuries is available against one who claims to be the master, to him who is said to be a slave and asserts himself to be free.
et hoc uerum est, siue ex libertate in seruitutem petatur siue ex seruitute in libertatem proclamet: nam hoc iure indistincte utimur.
And this is true, whether he is claimed from freedom into slavery, or whether he proclaims himself from slavery into freedom; for we use this law without distinction.