Contributory Negligence: a Historical and Comparative Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Contributory negligence: a historical and comparative study Citation for published version (APA): van Dongen, E. G. D. (2013). Contributory negligence: a historical and comparative study. Universiteit Maastricht. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20130618ed Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2013 DOI: 10.26481/dis.20130618ed Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: www.umlib.nl/taverne-license Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: [email protected] providing details and we will investigate your claim. Download date: 28 Sep. 2021 Contributory Negligence Immagine di copertina: Tratto dal documento: Ms. Torino BN, E.I.4, fo. 139v. Collocazione documento: Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino. Gentilmente concesso dal Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali. Ogni riproduzione è vietata. On the cover: Ms. Torino BN, E.I.4, fo. 139v. Cover image rights Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture, National University Library of Turin. Reproduction of the cover image without permission of the library is prohibited. © 2013 E.G.D. van Dongen Cover design and lay-out by Canon Business Services. Printed in the Netherlands by Canon Business Services. This book is printed on cradle to cradle recycled paper. A commercial edition of this dissertation is forthcoming. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanically, including photocopying, recording by any information storage and retrieval system without permission from the author. Contributory Negligence A Historical and Comparative Study proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Maastricht, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. L.L.G. Soete volgens het besluit van het College van Decanen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 18 juni 2013 om 12.00 uur door Emanuel Gabriël Dominique van Dongen Promotores: Prof. dr. C.H. van Rhee Prof. dr. J. Hallebeek (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. A.M.J.A. Berkvens (voorzitter) Prof. dr. N. Jansen (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster) Prof. dr. R.C.H. Lesaffer (Universiteit van Tilburg) Prof. dr. G.E. van Maanen Prof. dr. J.M. Smits Dit proefschrift is tot stand gekomen dankzij financiële steun van NWO. contents Preface ................................................................................................ XIII Abbreviations .................................................................................................. XV Chapter One Introduction .............................................................................. 1 1.1 The subject of this study ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Central questions ..................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Comparative legal history ....................................................... 7 1.2.3 Definition of contributory negligence .................................. 7 1.2.4 Delineation of the study.......................................................... 9 1.3 Structure ................................................................................................ 10 Chapter Two Roman Law in Antiquity ....................................................... 13 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Subject and purpose of this chapter ................................... 13 2.1.2 Structure and method ........................................................... 15 2.2 The origin of the regula of D. 50.17.203 .......................................... 16 2.2.1 The text of D. 50.17.203 ......................................................... 16 2.2.2 Translation of D. 50.17.203 ................................................... 18 2.2.3 Inscriptio ................................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Exegesis according to (classical) Roman law .................... 21 2.3 Alfenus’ reply in the case of the innkeeper ................................... 30 2.3.1 The text of D. 9.2.52.1 ............................................................ 30 2.3.2 Translation of D. 9.2.52.1 ...................................................... 38 2.3.3 Inscriptio .................................................................................. 39 2.3.4 Exegesis according to (classical) Roman law ................... 41 2.4 Ulpian’s reply in the case of the javelin throwers ........................ 54 2.4.1 The text of D. 9.2.9.4 ............................................................. 54 2.4.2 Translation of D. 9.2.9.4 ....................................................... 55 2.4.3 Inscriptio .................................................................................. 55 2.4.4 Exegesis according to classical Roman law ...................... 56 2.4.5 Post-classical development .................................................. 72 VIII contents 2.5 Ulpian’s reply in the barber case ...................................................... 78 2.5.1 The text of D. 9.2.11pr. ............................................................ 78 2.5.2 Translation of D. 9.2.11pr. ..................................................... 80 2.5.3 Inscriptio ................................................................................... 81 2.5.4 Exegesis according to classical Roman law ....................... 83 2.5.5 Post-classical development (Justinian law) ..................... 98 2.6 General treatment of all relevant cases in Justinian law ............ 98 2.7 Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 102 Chapter Three Medieval Ius Commune ....................................................... 105 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 105 3.1.1 Subject and purpose of this chapter ................................. 105 3.1.2 Structure and method ......................................................... 107 3.2 Medieval Roman legal scholarship ................................................ 109 3.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 109 3.2.2 Starting point 1: the doctrine of culpae compensatio ..... 111 3.2.2.1 The case of the javelin throwers .......................... 115 3.2.2.2 The case of the barber .......................................... 123 3.2.2.3 The case of the shopkeeper ................................ 129 3.2.3 Starting point 2: the rule of D. 50.17.203 ........................ 139 3.2.4 Concluding remarks ............................................................. 142 3.3 Canon law ............................................................................................ 146 3.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 146 3.3.2 Negligence and causation in canon law ........................... 147 3.3.3 Accidental homicide: early canonists .............................. 153 3.3.4 Accidental homicide: two cases from the Liber Extra ... 156 3.3.4.1 The case of X 5.12.8 ............................................... 156 3.3.4.2 The case of X 5.12.9 ............................................... 163 3.3.5 Contributory negligence according to the law of decretals ............................................................................ 168 3.3.5.1 The case of X 5.16.6 ............................................... 168 3.3.5.2 Culpae compensatio .............................................. 173 3.3.6 The maxim of VI 5.12.86 ...................................................... 175 3.4 Short comparative remarks ............................................................. 177 3.4.1 Structure and purpose. ........................................................ 177 3.4.2 Byzantine