Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006    Full Text (PDF)

The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law

Abdurrahman Savaş

Roman Law had two basic principles of liability: the principles of objective and subjective liability. In the field of tort law, the principle of objective liability had started turning into subjective liability. The Lex Aquilia was a landmark in this regard. During the classical law period, the main principle of liability in the field of contract law was objective liability, and custodia liability was the most common form of strict liability. According to this understanding, the person who gave rise to the situation that caused the responsibility bears the consequences regardless of the reason. On the other hand, liability based on intent (dolus) began being accepted in the bonae fidei contracts in this period. In the post-classical period, fault liability was adopted, with negligence being taken into account when determining liability. The transition from objective liability to subjective liability necessitated the situation that had caused the liability to be investigated and to seek the fault of the debtor in the occurrence of an unlawful outcome. The basis of holding the debtor responsible according to his fault has brought with it the problem of how to determine fault (culpa). Culpa is divided into intent (dolus) and negligence (also culpa), and negligence is scaled to slight negligence (culpa levis) and gross negligence (culpa lata). Although the trend was found from strict liability to fault liability in the historical course of Roman law, these days the fault of the related person is rated and taken into account when determining responsibility to be able to maintain the equity (aequitas), and the areas where strict liability is accepted are also increasing.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006    Full Text (PDF)

Roma Hukukunda Kusursuz Sorumluluğun Kusur Sorumluluğuna Dönüşüm Süreci ve Bu Dönüşümün Modern Hukuka Etkisi

Abdurrahman Savaş

Roma Hukukunda esas olarak iki sorumluluk prensibi mevcuttur. Bunlar objektif ve sübjektif sorumluluk prensipleridir. Haksız fiiller alanında çok eski dönemlerden itibaren sübjektif sorumluluğa geçiş başlamıştır. Lex Aquilia kanunu bu konuda bir dönüm noktasıdır. Klasik hukuk döneminde, sözleşmeler alanında asıl olan objektif sorumluluk olup en yaygın görünüş biçimi olarak custodia sorumluluğu cari olmuştur. Bu anlayışta sorumluluğa neden olan duruma sebebiyet veren kişi bunun nedenine bakılmaksızın sonuçlarına katlanır. Öte yandan iyiniyet sözleşmelerinde ise kasttan sorumluluk bu dönemde kabul edilmeye başlanmıştı. Klasik sonrası dönemde ise kusur sorumluluğu benimsenmiş ve ihmal de sorumluluğun belirlenmesinde hesaba katılır olmuştur. Objektif sorumluluktan sübjektif sorumluluğa geçiş, sorumluluğa neden olan durumun araştırılmasını ve hukuka aykırı sonucun meydana gelmesinde borçlunun kusurunun aranmasını gerektirmiştir. Kusuruna göre borçlunun sorumlu tutulması esası ise beraberinde kusurun nasıl belirleneceği sorunsalını da getirmiştir. Kusur (culpa), kast (dolus) ve ihmal (culpa) olarak ayrılmış ve ihmal de kendi içerisinde hafif ihmal (culpa levis) ve ağır ihmal (culpa lata) olarak ölçeklendirilmiştir. Her ne kadar Roma hukukunun tarihsel süreci içerisinde kusursuz sorumluluktan kusur sorumluluğuna doğru bir gidişat yaşanmış ve sorumluluğun hesabında ilgilinin kusuru derecelendirilip hesaba katılmaya çalışılmış olsa da günümüzde hakkaniyetin sağlanabilmesi için kusursuz sorumluluğun kabul edilip yaygınlaştırıldığı alanlar da artmaktadır.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Liability expresses the responsibility individuals have to fix the damage they have caused to others. This responsibility may arise from a contract or tort, as well as from the law. One of the crucial problems of determining a debtor’s liability is whether it should be assessed by evaluating only external factors or by also evaluating internal factors. When taking objective factors into account, the liability of the debtor is a strict liability. However, to consider subjective factors means that liability is based on fault.

Different types of liability were practiced in Roman law, which lasted almost 1,300 years. Initially, the rule generally was strict liability. Afterwards, first in tort law and then in contractual law, fault liability occurred. In the period of Justinian I, however, fault liability became the rule.

Beginning in the middle of the Regnum period, the evolution toward fault liability commenced by means of intent, as sought for in tort law. In the Laws of the Twelve Tables, only intent was sought for liability in murder. With the Lex Aquilia adopted toward the end of the 3rd century BC, negligence was also considered sufficient for the existence of liability in the field of wrongful acts resulting in damage to property.

The idea of being careful and not harming others originated in Greek philosophy and was seen to be effective in the transition from strict liability to fault liability, which developed as a measure of responsibility. The owner and father of the family (pater familias) was considered responsible for the wrongful acts and damages caused by the slaves and members of the family (filius familia) as well as the pets owned.

With Lex Aquilia, negligence being accepted as adequate for the existence of liability resulting in damage to property also affected liability as understood in contract law, and the transition to fault liability began.

The rule of “Uti lingua nuncupassit ita ius esto (as he declares orally, be that law)” which emerged in the old legal period regarding giving loans and was present in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, states that strict liability also applies to contracts. With the pre-classical legal period, the concepts of dolus and culpa began to find places for themselves. However, the concept of strict liability did not come to an end and continued to be in practice. With regards to debts imposed upon parties, the differences contracts had in their structure prevented the application of a single liability criterion for all contract types. For this reason, different liability criteria were in put into practice together, as had been the case in the pre-classical legal period when the transition first commenced. One criterion of liability current in that period was custodia (supervisory) liability. After this, diligentia can be mentioned as the first milestone of fault liability and utilitas as a special application of diligentia. In the era of Justinian I, the prevailing principle was omnis culpa liability, which expresses responsibility for all faults.

Custodia liability was usually practiced in contracts when the debtor held property belonging to the creditor for his own benefit. As the prevailing principle throughout the classical period, custodia liability included unexpected situations (casus fortuitus), and thus also calls to mind guarantee liability. As a rule, a debtor was not liable for force majeure (vis maior) except in cases of default where the debtor’s liability expanded to include vis maior.

Starting in the post-classical period and based on slight negligence, diligentia liability was accepted by taking into consideration the care that a good head of household (pater familias) should show. Diligentia liability is the subjectivation of custodia, which expresses objective liability. Later in the post-classical period, the importance Christianity attached to will greatly impacted the acceptance of fault lability. Being based on culpa (negligence), diligentia liability was objectified by seeking out the attention and care (culpa in abstracto) that a good pater familias should show. This objective liability, in terms of some obligatio, could also be combined with subjective elements by seeking the attention and care that the debtor should show in his own affairs. This criterion was expressed as culpa in concreto and constituted the lightened version of diligentia. During the reign of Justinian I, culpa liability became properly clear. Failing to show the attention and care that anyone is able to show was expressed as culpa lata (gross negligence) and considered equal to intent. In this period, the benefit obtained from the contract was taken into account in order to determine the degree of liability of the debtor, and the attention and care a debtor should show increased if the debtor had more benefits. However, some relationships such as mandatum (mandate) and negotiorum gestio (acting without authority) placed the care and attention required by the debtor who had no interest at the highest level.

Due to the changes that took place in technology and social life with the Industrial Revolution, fault liability has become insufficient for eliminating the damages individuals suffered. Increased employment rates and expansion of activities and businesses that pose grave dangers to the people and environment have led to a return to strict liability. In this context, certain persons such as those who employ others, who have animals and are the heads of households, or who are owners of building facilities are held responsible for the damages suffered by others under certain conditions, even if they are not at fault. To accept all these responsibilities, rules similar to those in Roman law have been accepted, and the principle of strict liability was put into practice once again as it had in the past.

Some of these liabilities appear to be based on aggravated versions of diligentia liability, while others are based on hazard, and others still are just simply based on the causation principle.

Fault liability also means responsibility arising from all kinds of fault, especially intent, just as it had been in late Roman law. Utilitas is also a principle of Roman law that is currently used to determine liability in today’s modern law. Modern law has deemed vis maior to be a reason that interrupts the causal link and accepts it as a case that prevents the emergence of liability. Concordantly, the debtor who is under the fault liability will also be accepted as liable for unexpected situations in case of default. 


PDF View

References

  • Akıncı Ş, Roma Borçlar Hukuku, (6. Bası Sayram 2016) google scholar
  • Akıncı Ş, Vekalet Sözleşmesinin Sona Ermesi, (1. Bası Sayram 2004) google scholar
  • Altınöz Ü, İcra-İflas Hukukunda Disiplin ve Tazyik Hapsi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2019) google scholar
  • Antalya OG, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler C.2 (1. Bası Legal 2015) google scholar
  • Ayiter K, Roma Hukuku Dersleri Aile Hukuku, (2. Bası AÜ Basımevi 1963) google scholar
  • Başpınar V, Vekilin Özen Borcundan Doğan Sorumluluğu, (2. Bası Yetkin 2004) google scholar
  • Baycık G, Türk-İsviçre Hukukunda İşçinin Sorumluluğu, (1. Bası Yetkin 2015) google scholar
  • Baysal B, Haksız Fiil Hukuku BK m. 49-76, (1. Bası Onikilevha 2019) google scholar
  • Berki Ş, Roma Hukuku (Ankara 1949) google scholar
  • Bozbayındır AE, Türk ve Mukayeseli Ceza Hukukunda Olası Kast Kavramı ve Sınırları, (Adalet 2019) google scholar
  • Buckland WW, A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, (3. Bası Cambridge Uni 1966) google scholar
  • Çekin M, 6098 Sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Madde 71 Çerçevesinde Tehlike Sorumluluğu, (1. Bası onikilevha 2016) google scholar
  • Descheanux H ve Tercier P, Sorumluluk Hukuku (1983) google scholar
  • Di Marzo S, Roma Hukuku, Çev. Ziya Umur, (2. Bası İ.Ü Yayını 1959) google scholar
  • Dinçer Araz N, ‘Roma Hukukunda Sözleşmesel Sorumluluk Ölçütlerinden Biri Olarak Özen Yükümü (Diligentia)’, (2020) 22(1) DEÜHFD 171-218 google scholar
  • Ekinci EB, Hukukun Serüveni, (3. Bası Arı Sanat 2017) google scholar
  • Endes Selvi N, ‘Roma Hukukunda Tehlike Sorumluluğu’, in Abuzer Kendigelen (ed), Prof. Dr. Türkan Radonun Anısına Armağan (Onikilevha 2020) 1005-1026. google scholar
  • Erdoğmuş B, ‘Klasik Roma Hukukunda Kusursuz Sorumluluk Örneği: Custodia’ (2010) 1 Prof. Dr.Rona Serozan’a Armağan 895- 908 google scholar
  • Erdoğmuş B, Roma Borçlar Hukuku, (1. Bası Der 2005) google scholar
  • Eren F, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (25. Bası Yetkin 2020) google scholar
  • Furrer A, Muller-Chen M ve Çetiner B, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (1. Bası Onikilevha) google scholar
  • Gönenç Fİ, ‘Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğunun Tarihsel Gelişimi’ (2008) 14 (4) MÜHFD-HAD (Roma Hukukundan Modern Hukuka Sorumluluk Sempozyum Özel Sayısı) 13-28 google scholar
  • Gönül Koşar G, Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğunda Kusur ve Etkisi, (1. Bası Onikilevha 2020) google scholar
  • Gümüş MA, Vekilin Özen Borcu, (1. Bası Beta 2001) google scholar
  • Günveren GB, ‘Roma Hukukunda Kullanım Ödüncü (Ariyet) Sözleşmesi (Commodatum)’, HHFD, (2019) 9 (2) 311-363 google scholar
  • Hatemi H ve Gökyayla E, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Bölüm, (Vedat 2011) google scholar
  • Hatemi H, Serozan R ve Arpacı A, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Bölüm, (1. Bası Filiz 1992) google scholar
  • Hatemi H, Sözleşme Dışı Sorumluluk Hukuku, (Filiz 1998) google scholar
  • Honig R, Roma Hukuku, (İÜ 1938) google scholar
  • İnan AN, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, (1. Bası AÜ 1979) google scholar
  • İpek N, Roma Hukukunda Gasp (Rapina), (Der 2001) google scholar
  • Karadeniz Çelebican Ö, Roma Hukuku, (17. Bası Turhan 2014) google scholar
  • Karadeniz Ö, Iustinianus Zamanına Kadar Roma’da İş İlişkileri, (AÜ 1976) google scholar
  • Karahasan MR, Sorumluluk ve Tazminat Hukuku, (Beta 1989) google scholar
  • Karakocalı A, Roma Hukukunda ve Türk Hukukunda Korkutma (Metus), (1. Bası Seçkin 2016) google scholar
  • Kaser M, Roman Private Law, (4. Bası Gutenberg 1984) google scholar
  • Kayak S, ‘Roma Hukukunda Eser Sözleşmesinde İfa İmkânsızlığının Hükümleri ve Türk Hukukunu Etkileyen Yönleri’, (2018) 20 (2) DEÜHFD 239-305 google scholar
  • Kayak S, ‘Roma Hukukunda Görevi Kötüye Kullanma Suçu: D. 48.11 Metinlerinin Çevirisi ve Tahlili’ in Abuzer Kendigelen (ed), Prof. Dr. Türkan Radonun Anısına Armağan (Onikilevha 2020) 737-768 google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu AM, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler (2. Bası Turhan 2020) google scholar
  • Koç N, Bina ve Yapı Eseri Maliklerinin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (BK. m. 58), (1. Bası DEÜ 1990) google scholar
  • Koschaker P ve Ayiter K, Modern Özel Hukuka Giriş Olarak Roma Özel Hukukunun Ana Hatları, (DEÜ 1993) google scholar
  • Küçük E, Roma Hukuku Davalar Sisteminde Actio Popularis, (Adalet 2013) google scholar
  • Küçükgüngör E, Roma Hukukunda Vedia Sözleşmesi (Depositum), (Yetkin 2002) google scholar
  • Nomer HH, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, (18. Bası Beta) google scholar
  • Oğuzman MK ve Öz T, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler C.2 (15. Bası Vedat 2021) google scholar
  • Oğuzoğlu HC, Roma Hukuku, (AÜ 1959) google scholar
  • Öcal B, ‘Damnum İniuria Datum’da Iniuria ve Culpa İlişkisi’, (2011) (1) İÜHFD 345-386 google scholar
  • Rado T, Roma Hukuk Dersleri Borçlar Hukuku (14. Bası Filiz 2018) google scholar
  • Sayın Korkmaz B, Roma Hukukunda Vekalet Sözleşmesi (Mandatum), (Yetkin 2014) google scholar
  • Serozan R, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler İfa ifa Engelleri Haksız Zenginleşme (6. Bası Filiz 2014) google scholar
  • Sevan Nişanyan, ‘ihmal’ < https://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=ihmal+ > 1 Eylül 2021. google scholar
  • Somer P, ‘Roma Hukukunda Hekimin Sorumluluğu’, (2008) 14 (4) MÜHFD-HAD (Roma Hukukundan Modern Hukuka Sorumluluk, Sempozyum Özel Sayısı) 133-151 google scholar
  • Somer P, Roma Hukukunda Mala Verilen Zarar Türk Hukuku İle Karşılaştırmalı, (Derin 2008) google scholar
  • Somer P, Roma Hukukunda İstisna Akdi (Locatio Conductio Operis),(Derin 2008) google scholar
  • Söğüt İS, Roma Hukukunda Exceptio Doli Generalis (Genel Hile Def’i). (1. Bası Filiz 2020) google scholar
  • Söğütlü Erişgin Ö, ‘Roma Hukukunda Sözleşmesel Sorumlulukta Casus ve Vis Maior’ in Abuzer Kendigelen (ed), Prof. Dr. Türkan Radonun Anısına Armağan (Onikilevha 2020) 503-567. google scholar
  • Söğütlü Erişgin Ö, Roma Hukukunda Tarihsel Gelişimi içerisinde Contractus (Sözleşme) Kavramı ve Sözleşmesel Sorumluluk Ölçütleri, (1. Bası Seçkin 2016) google scholar
  • Söğütlü Ö, Roma Özel Hukuku Ders Kitabı (2. Bası Seçkin 2021) google scholar
  • Sütken E, Roma Borçlar Hukukunda Sorumluluk ve Günümüz Hukukuna Etkileri, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi) (Eskişehir 2003) google scholar
  • Tahiroğlu B ve Erdoğmuş B, Roma Hukuku Dersleri (14. Bası Der 2020) google scholar
  • Tahiroğlu B, ‘Kusursuz Sorumluluk ve Modern Hukuklara Etkisi’, MÜHF-HAD, (2008) 14 (4) (Roma Hukukundan Modern Hukuka Sorumluluk, Sempozyum Özel Sayısı) 157-170 google scholar
  • Tahiroğlu B, Roma Borçlar Hukuku (Der 2020) google scholar
  • Tahiroğlu B, Roma Hukukunda Furtum, (1. Bası İÜ 1975) google scholar
  • Tahiroğlu B, Roma Hukukunda İniuria (1. Bası İÜ 1969) google scholar
  • Tamer Güven D, Culpa In Eligendo Yardımcı Şahıs Seçmede Kusur Nedeniyle Sözleşmeden Doğan Sorumluluk, (Der 2001) google scholar
  • Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H ve Altop A, Tekinay Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (7. Bası Filiz 1993) google scholar
  • Tunçomağ K, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, C.1 (6. Bası Sermet 1976) google scholar
  • Türkoğlu HG, Roma Hukukunda Suç ve Ceza, (2. Bası Seçkin 2017) google scholar
  • Türkoğlu Özdemir G, ‘Roma Hukukunda Hayvanların Yolaçtıkları Zararlardan Doğan Sorumluluk’ (2006) 14 (2), 69-96 google scholar
  • Uçaryılmaz TŞ, Roma Hukukundan Günümüz Hukukuna Dek Bona Fides İlkesi, (Bilkent Üni 2018) google scholar
  • Umur Z, Roma Hukuk Lügati, (İstanbul 1983) google scholar
  • Umur Z, Roma Hukuku Ders Notları (3. Bası Beta 2010) google scholar
  • Ünal M, Türk Medeni Hukukunda Aile Başkanının Sorumluluğu, (AÜHFY 1979) google scholar
  • Yeşiller M, ‘Roma Hukukunda Gemi, Han ve Ahır İşletenlerin Receptum Sorumluluğu’, ÇKÜİİBFD, (2013) 3 (1) 177-191 google scholar
  • Yıldırım MF, ‘Nitelikli Elektronik Sertifika Hizmet Sağlayıcısının Hukuki Sorumluluğu’, (2004) 8 (3-4) AÜEHFD 257-283 google scholar
  • Yüksel Hİ, Roma Hukukundan Türk Hukukuna Hükümsüzlük Sisteminin Oluşumu ve Gelişimi, (Filiz Kitabevi 2020) google scholar
  • Zafer H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler TCK m. 1-75(5. Bası Beta 2015) google scholar
  • Zevkliler A ve Gökyayla E, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, (15. Bası Turhan 2015) google scholar
  • Zilelioğlu H, ‘Roma Hukukunda Sorumluluk Ölçütlerine Genel Bir Bakış’, AÜHFD 1987 (39) 1-4, 241-264 google scholar
  • Zimmermann R, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, (3. Bası Rustica Cape Town 1996) google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Savaş, A. (2022). The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law. Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), 537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


AMA

Savaş A. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law. Istanbul Law Review. 2022;80(2):537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


ABNT

Savaş, A. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 80, n. 2, p. 537-582, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Savaş, Abdurrahman,. 2022. “The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2: 537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


Chicago: Humanities Style

Savaş, Abdurrahman,. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2 (Dec. 2022): 537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


Harvard: Australian Style

Savaş, A 2022, 'The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 537-582, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Savaş, A. (2022) ‘The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law’, Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), pp. 537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Savaş, Abdurrahman,. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, 2022, pp. 537-582. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


Vancouver

Savaş A. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];80(2):537-582. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006


ISNAD

Savaş, Abdurrahman. The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This Transformation Has Had on Modern Law”. Istanbul Law Review 80/2 (Dec. 2022): 537-582. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0006



TIMELINE


Submitted27.12.2021
Accepted22.06.2022
Published Online22.07.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.