[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum. ] §9.2.27.prSi seruus seruum alienum subripuerit et occiderit, et Iulianus et Celsus scribunt et furti et damni iniuriae competere actionem.
[ULPIANUS, from the eighteenth book on the Edict.] If a slave steals and kills another person's slave, both Julian and Celsus write that both the action for theft and the action for wrongful damage are available.
§9.2.27.1Si seruus communis, id est meus et tuus, seruum meum occiderit, legi Aquiliae locus est aduersus te, si tua uoluntate fecit: et ita Proculum existimasse Urseius refert.
If a common slave, that is, one belonging to you and me, kills my own slave, there is room for an action under the Lex Aquilia against you, if he did so with your consent; and Urseius reports that Proculus was of this opinion.
quod si non uoluntate tua fecit, cessare noxalem actionem, ne sit in potestate serui, ut tibi soli seruiat: quod puto uerum esse.
But if he did so without your consent, the noxal action does not lie, lest it should be in the power of the slave to serve you alone; and I think this is correct.
§9.2.27.2Item si seruus communis meus et tuus sit oсcisus a seruo Titii, Celsus scribit alterum ex dominis agentem aut litis aestimationem consecuturum pro parte aut noxae dedi ei in solidum oportere, quia haec res diuisionem non recipit.
Likewise, if a common slave belonging to you and me is killed by a slave of Titius, Celsus writes that if one of the owners sues, he will either recover the valuation of the suit in proportion to his share, or the slave must be surrendered to him as noxal for the whole, because this matter does not admit of division.
§9.2.27.3Serui autem occidentis nomine dominus tenetur, is uero cui bona fide seruit non tenetur.
Moreover, the owner is held liable on account of a slave who kills, but he whom the slave serves in good faith is not held liable.
sed an is, qui seruum in fuga habet, teneatur nomine eius Aquiliae actione, quaeritur: et ait Iulianus teneri et est uerissimum: cum et Marcellus consentit.
But it is asked whether a person who has a slave in flight is held liable on his account under the Aquilian action; and Julian says he is held liable, which is most true, and Marcellus also agrees.
§9.2.27.4Huius legis secundum quidem capitulum in desuetudinem abiit.
The second chapter of this law has indeed fallen into disuse.
§9.2.27.5Tertio autem capite ait eadem lex Aquilia: 'Ceterarum rerum praeter hominem et pecudem occisos si quis alteri damnum faxit, quod usserit fregerit ruperit iniuria, quanti ea res erit in diebus triginta proximis, tantum aes domino dare damnas esto'. §9.2.27.6Si quis igitur non occiderit hominem uel pecudem, sed usserit fregerit ruperit, sine dubio ex his uerbis legis agendum erit.
But in the third chapter, the same Lex Aquilia says: "In respect of all other things besides slaves and cattle killed, if anyone causes damage to another by wrongfully burning, fracturing, or breaking, he shall be condemned to pay to the owner whatever the thing shall be worth within the next thirty days." Therefore, if anyone does not kill a slave or cattle, but burns, fractures, or breaks them, action must undoubtedly be brought under these words of the law.
proinde si facem seruo meo obieceris et eum adusseris, teneberis mihi.
Accordingly, if you throw a torch at my slave and burn him, you will be liable to me.
§9.2.27.7Item si arbustum meum uel uillam meam incenderis, Aquiliae actionem habebo.
Likewise, if you set fire to my orchard or my villa, I shall have the Aquilian action.
§9.2.27.8Si quis insulam uoluerit meam exurere et ignis etiam ad uicini insulam peruenerit, Aquilia tenebitur etiam uicino: non minus etiam inquilinis tenebitur ob res eorum exustas.
If anyone wishes to burn down my apartment building, and the fire also reaches a neighbor's apartment building, he will be liable under the Lex Aquilia to the neighbor as well; and he will be no less liable to the tenants for their burnt belongings.
§9.2.27.9Si fornicarius seruus coloni ad fornacem obdormisset et uilla fuerit exusta, Neratius scribit ex locato conuentum praestare debere, si neglegens in eligendis ministeriis fuit: ceterum si alius ignem subiecerit fornaci, alius neglegenter custodierit, an tenebitur qui subiecerit? nam qui custodit, nihil fecit, qui recte ignem subiecit, non peccauit: quid ergo est? puto utilem competere actionem tam in eum qui ad fornacem obdormiuit quam in eum qui neglegenter custodit, nec quisquam dixerit in eo qui obdormiuit rem eum humanam et naturalem passum, cum deberet uel ignem extinguere uel ita munire, ne euagetur.
If a tenant's slave in charge of the furnace falls asleep by the furnace and the villa is burnt down, Neratius writes that the tenant, if he was negligent in choosing his servants, must answer under the contract of lease when sued. But if one person puts fire in the furnace and another guards it carelessly, will the one who put it in be liable? For the one who was guarding did nothing, and the one who properly put the fire in committed no fault. What then is the case? I think that a useful action is available both against the one who fell asleep by the furnace and against the one who guarded it carelessly; nor would anyone say of the one who fell asleep that he suffered a natural human occurrence, since he ought either to have extinguished the fire or secured it so that it would not spread.
§9.2.27.10Si furnum secundum parietem communem haberes, an damni iniuria tenearis? et ait Proculus agi non posse, quia nec cum eo qui focum haberet: et ideo aequius puto in factum actionem dandam, scilicet si paries exustus sit: sin autem nondum mihi damnum dederis, sed ita ignem habeas, ut metuam, ne mihi damnum des, damni infecti puto sufficere cautionem.
If you have an oven along a common wall, would you be liable for wrongful damage? Proculus says that no action can be brought, just as none can be brought against someone who has a hearth; therefore, I think it is fairer that an action on the facts be given, provided, of course, that the wall has been burnt. But if you have not yet caused me damage, but maintain the fire in such a way that I fear you will cause me damage, I think the security for damage not yet done is sufficient.
§9.2.27.11Proculus ait, cum coloni serui uillam exussissent, colonum uel ex locato uel lege Aquilia teneri, ita ut colonus possit seruos noxae dedere, et si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum.
Proculus says that when a tenant's slaves have burnt down a villa, the tenant is liable either under the lease or under the Lex Aquilia, so that the tenant can surrender the slaves as noxal; and if the matter is decided in one action, no further action can be brought under the other.
sed haec ita, si culpa colonus careret: ceterum si noxios seruos habuit, damni eum iniuria teneri, cur tales habuit.
But this is only if the tenant was free from fault; on the other hand, if he kept harmful slaves, he is liable for wrongful damage on the ground of why he kept such slaves.
idem seruandum et circa inquilinorum insulae personas scribit: quae sententia habet rationem.
He writes that the same rule must be observed regarding the persons of tenants in an apartment building; and this opinion is reasonable.
§9.2.27.12Si cum apes meae ad tuas aduolassent, tu eas exusseris, legis Aquiliae actionem competere Celsus ait.
If, when my bees flew to yours, you burnt them, Celsus says that the action under the Lex Aquilia is available.
§9.2.27.13Inquit lex 'ruperit'.
The law says "has broken" (ruperit).
rupisse uerbum fere omnes ueteres sic intellexerunt 'corruperit'.
Almost all the ancient jurists understood the word "to have broken" (rupisse) in the sense of "to have spoiled" (corruperit).
§9.2.27.14Et ideo Celsus quaerit, si lolium aut auenam in segetem alienam inieceris, quo eam tu inquinares, non solum quod ui aut clam dominum posse agere uel, si locatus fundus sit, colonum, sed et in factum agendum, et si colonus eam exercuit, cauere eum debere amplius non agi, scilicet ne dominus amplius inquietet: nam alia quaedam species damni est ipsum quid corrumpere et mutare, ut lex Aquilia locum habeat, alia nulla ipsius mutatione applicare aliud, cuius molesta separatio sit.
And therefore Celsus asks: if you throw darnel or wild oats into another's crop so as to contaminate it, not only can the owner (or, if the land is leased, the tenant) bring an action on the ground of what has been done by force or stealth (quod ui aut clam), but an action on the facts (in factum) must also be brought; and if the tenant has pursued this, he must give security that no further action will be brought, namely, so that the owner does not cause further trouble; for it is one kind of damage to spoil and change a thing itself, so that the Lex Aquilia applies, and another, without any change in the thing itself, to attach something else whose separation would be troublesome.
§9.2.27.15Cum eo plane, qui uinum spurcauit uel effudit uel acetum fecit uel alio modo uitiauit, agi posse Aquilia Celsus ait, quia etiam effusum et acetum factum corrupti appellatione continentur.
Celsus says that action can clearly be brought under the Lex Aquilia against one who has defiled wine, spilled it, turned it into vinegar, or spoiled it in any other way, because even being spilled and being turned into vinegar are included under the term "spoiled" (corrupti).