Heineccius is right to give a negative reply to the four (really rhetorical) questions in the middle of the quotation. Yet Chapter of the Romanlex Aquiliacovered only the killing of slaves and herd animals and gave as damages the highest value the slave or animal had in the past year, Chapter dealt with all other injuries and the action was for the loss which became apparent within thirty days of the injury. In the Empire the statute was interpreted restrictively as covering only injuries directly caused - in later terminology, ‘by the body to the body’ - and analogous actions were given for indirect damage. For all three chapters of the lex, the measure of damages was doubled if the defendant denied liability. Thus, in fact, despite the importance of the lexAquilia- especially the discussions of negligence - for subsequent generations and its prominence in post-Roman legal writings, its special features were not taken over by the mediaeval or renaissance lawyers. We have to beware of exaggerating the extent of a transplant. Here, as in some other cases, what is adopted is mainly the terminology. Yet the authority of the old law remains clear, despite much rejection. V body nor to the body? And finally is the sum of damages doubled here if liability is denied? Of course, no one would say that. And who therefore can say that the action under the lex Aquilia has been received? Therefore the present action for inflicted loss truly comes from natural law and our national statutes, not from the lex Aquilia.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=