oa Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History - Zur mittelbaren

Special issue 1
  • ISSN : 1021-545X
  • E-ISSN: 2411-7870



When a relative is injured or offended by a wrongdoer, Roman law distinguishes between two types of : the harm done to the concerned person herself ("direct ") and the injury caused indirectly to other persons by the same incident ("indirect "). An example is given in Gai 3.221 and I. 4.4.2: If a married is injured, the against the wrongdoer can be brought not only , but also and . As Ulpian (D. points out, the relevant criteria in respect of indirect are and . The actions based on indirect can be instituted together with the action based on direct (Neraz cited by Ulpian in D.; the in every action is independent of the in the other actions (Paul citing Pomponius in D.; Ulpian D. According to Neraz (cited by Ulpian D. it does not matter whether or not the wrongdoer knows the or of another person. Paul, on the other hand, insists that knowledge of these is necessary, regardless of the person involved in the case: the wrongdoer is liable if he knows the legal status (as or as ) of the person who is directly concerned (D. Finally - as explained by Paul (D. 47.10.26) and Ulpian (D. - the persons who are indirectly concerned can sue for their own even when there is no action in favour of the person who is directly concerned (e.g. a son or a slave who consents to an abusive treatment: ).

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Article metrics loading...


This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error