Cargando…
Contributory Negligence : a Historical and Comparative Study.
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.
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Leiden :
BRILL,
2014.
©2014 |
| Colección: | Legal history library. Studies in the history of private law.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- 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.