Contributory Negligence : a Historical and Comparative Study.

Print version record.

Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study; Copyright; Contents; Acknowledgments; Abbreviations; Chapter One: Introduction; 1.1 The subject of this study; 1.2 Methodology; 1.2.1 Central questions; 1.2.2 Comparative legal history; 1.2.3 Definition of contributory negligence; 1.2.4 Delineation of the study; 1.3 Structure; Chapter Two: Roman Law in Antiquity; 2.1 Introduction; 2.1.1 Subject and purpose of this chapter; 2.1.2 Structure and method; 2.2 The origin of the regula of D. 50.17.203; 2.2.1 The text of D. 50.17.203; 2.2.2 Translation of D. 50.17.203; 2.2.3 Inscriptio.

2.2.4 Exegesis according to (classical) Roman law2.3 Alfenus' reply in the case of the innkeeper; 2.3.1 The text of D. 9.2.52.1; 2.3.2 Translation of D. 9.2.52.1; 2.3.3 Inscriptio; 2.3.4 Exegesis according to (classical) Roman law; 2.4 Ulpian's reply in the case of the javelin throwers; 2.4.1 The text of D. 9.2.9.4; 2.4.2 Translation of D. 9.2.9.4; 2.4.3 Inscriptio; 2.4.4 Exegesis according to classical Roman law; 2.4.5 Post-classical development; 2.5 Ulpian's reply in the barber case; 2.5.1 The text of D. 9.2.11pr.; 2.5.2 Translation of D. 9.2.11pr.; 2.5.3 Inscriptio.

2.5.4 Exegesis according to classical Roman law2.5.5 Post-classical development (Justinian law); 2.6 General treatment of all relevant cases in Justinian law; 2.7 Concluding remarks; Chapter Three: Medieval Ius Commune; 3.1 Introduction; 3.1.1 Subject and purpose of this chapter; 3.1.2 Structure and method; 3.2 Medieval Roman legal scholarship; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Starting point 1: the doctrine of culpae compensatio; 3.2.2.1 The case of the javelin throwers; 3.2.2.2 The case of the barber; 3.2.2.3 The case of the shopkeeper; 3.2.3 Starting point 2: the rule of D. 50.17.203.

3.2.4 Concluding remarks3.3 Canon law; 3.3.1 Introduction; 3.3.2 Negligence and causation in canon law; 3.3.3 Accidental homicide: early canonists; 3.3.4 Accidental homicide: two cases from the Liber Extra; 3.3.4.1 The case of X 5.12.8; 3.3.4.2 The case of X 5.12.9; 3.3.5 Contributory negligence according to the law of decretals; 3.3.5.1 The case of X 5.16.6; 3.3.5.2 Culpae compensatio; 3.3.6 The maxim of VI 5.12.86; 3.4 Short comparative remarks; 3.4.1 Structure and purpose; 3.4.2 Byzantine law; 3.4.3 Indigenous law; 3.4.3.1 Examples following the all-or-nothing approach.

3.4.3.2 Examples including a partition of damages3.5 Concluding remarks; Chapter Four: Early Modern Period; 4.1 Introduction; 4.1.1 Subject and purpose of this chapter; 4.1.2 Method and structure; 4.2 Legal humanism; 4.2.1 Introduction to the mos gallicus and mos italicus; 4.2.2 Humanistic thoughts based on the rule of D. 50.17.203; 4.2.2.1 The origin of D. 50.1 7.203; 4.2.2.2 According to the humanists, did D. 50.17.203 really concern contributory negligence in ; 4.2.2.3 Examples of the application of D. 50.17.203; 4.2.2.4 Preliminary conclusion; 4.2.3 New insights as regards D. 9.2.52.1.

4.2.3.1 The case of D. 9.2.52.1 as an example of self-defence.

In Contributory Negligence, Emanuel van Dongen gives an overview of the historical development of the effect of contributory negligence on delictual liability, from Antiquity until today.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

English.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide