Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorInferences from the Text

In classical Roman jurisprudence under the Lex Aquilia, liability for unlawful damage to property (damnum iniuria datum) was strictly tethered to direct physical causation—formulated doctrinally as damnum corpore corpori datum ("damage done by the body to the body"). Under this early standard, actionable claims required immediate physical contact between the tortfeasor's bodily act and the plaintiff's property, such as directly striking another's beast of burden. Harm resulting from indirect causation or omission was non-actionable under the statute. In response to these jurisdictional limitations, the Praetor subsequently introduced supplementary procedural mechanisms—most notably actiones utiles and actiones in factum—to grant redress for indirect losses, such as when an individual enclosed another person's cattle until they starved. Modern legal commentators frequently characterize this praetorian expansion as an embryonic transition toward a generalized standard of fault (culpa). However, this modern characterization obscures the conservative nature of praetorian jurisprudence: rather than repudiating the physical causality requirement of the Lex Aquilia, these supplementary actions operated as ad hoc procedural fictions that preserved the statute's underlying punitive architecture while providing remedies for consequential property losses.

Based on the passage, which of the following statements is most strongly supported regarding legal claims prior to the introduction of the Praetor's supplementary actions?

  1. A
    Plaintiffs seeking recovery for indirect property damage were required to demonstrate that the defendant acted with explicit malicious intent rather than mere negligence.
  2. B
    Property owners could successfully obtain statutory redress for starved livestock provided they proved ownership through formal praetorian writs.
  3. A property owner whose animal died as a consequence of confinement without sustenance would have been unable to obtain a remedy under the Lex Aquilia.Cevap
  4. D
    The Lex Aquilia permitted claims for consequential property damage only if the monetary value of the loss exceeded the statutory threshold for direct physical harm.
  5. E
    Judicial authorities routinely dismissed claims involving physical contact if the defendant could prove that the resulting damage was purely accidental.

Cevap

A property owner whose animal died as a consequence of confinement without sustenance would have been unable to obtain a remedy under the Lex Aquilia.
The passage states that under the original Lex Aquilia, liability was strictly confined to direct physical contact between the tortfeasor and the victim's property, leaving harms resulting from indirect causation or omission non-actionable. The author explicitly cites enclosing another person's cattle until they starved as an example of an indirect harm that required subsequent praetorian innovations to redress. Therefore, prior to those praetorian interventions, a property owner suffering such a loss had no legal remedy under the statute.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the scope and boundaries of the original Lex Aquilia
The original statute strictly required direct bodily contact between the actor and the property ('damnum corpore corpori datum') and left indirect causation or omissions non-actionable.
Establishing the explicit negative boundaries of the early statutory cause of action is necessary to infer what could not be redressed.
2
Synthesize the historical condition that prompted the Praetor's supplementary interventions
The Praetor introduced actiones utiles and actiones in factum specifically because scenarios involving indirect harm—such as enclosing cattle until they starved—fell outside the actionable scope of the Lex Aquilia.
Connecting the specific illustrative example in the text (starving cattle via confinement) to the pre-intervention legal state verifies the logical necessity of the correct deduction.
3
Evaluate the choices against the synthesized premise
Prior to the supplementary actions, an owner whose animal died from confinement without food suffered an indirect harm lacking direct bodily contact, rendering it entirely non-actionable under the statute.
Confirms that the correct statement is strictly entailed by the passage without requiring extraneous assumptions.

Anahtar Kavram

Deductive textual inference based on statutory scope and remedial evolution
Tahmini Süre:2m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Inferences from the Text

Bu konudan daha fazla soru