One of the most famous cases of Roman Law is Case 61 of our collection, also known as “A barber slits the throat of a slave.” In this case, a barber was shaving a slave's face in an area where people were playing ball. One of the players hit the ball "pretty hard" and the ball then hit the barber, causing his hand to slip, cutting his throat. This situation poses a difficult problem: deciding who is responsible for this loss, whether the ballplayers, the barber, or the slave himself. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay The two main points of view in this case are those of Ulpian and Mela. Mela argues that the blame lay with the barber, making him responsible. Culpa is a question of whether an action was wrongful because of a party's negligence, recklessness, or breach of duty of care. In this situation, Mela claims that the barber could have participated in the Culpa by choosing to perform a dangerous action (shaving the slaves' faces) in an area where ball is usually played. Mela states that since the barber chose to carry out his “dangerous” activity in an area where it is not necessarily safe, then he should be liable for any damages resulting from his Culpa. This decision would have an effect on Roman society as it would prevent barbers from opening their business in an area where it would be deemed unsafe. Ulpian disagrees in that he believes that part of the blame should be placed on the slave. Ulpian believes that by agreeing to have his hair cut in a place where ball was usually played, the slave himself participates in the recklessness and the barber should therefore not be held fully responsible. That is to say, the slave's recklessness is the main problem, because he should never have entered into this dangerous situation where he would allow his face to be shaved in an area where ball is usually played . Although both of these jurists have good points, the culpa should not fall entirely on the barber or the slave. Both of them participated in some sort of recklessness and therefore neither of them should be entirely responsible for the loss that occurred. Certainly the barber participated in the recklessness by setting up his business in an area where ball was usually played, but the slave also participated in the recklessness by allowing his face to be shaved in a place where danger was likely to occur. Furthermore, Mela and Ulpian's decisions have consequences that do not meet our expectations. For example, if Mela were to be right and the barber was held fully responsible, then barbers would have to be extremely careful about where they perform their service. Additionally, the number of people willing to perform this service would decrease significantly, as the risk of having to pay full compensation for this loss would be too great for many. However, Ulpian's decision also has unseen consequences. If the slave were to be held entirely responsible for the loss suffered, the slave owner would receive no compensation for the slave's death. This decision imposes on the slave owner the loss suffered when he did not participate in any form of Culpa. By holding both the slave and the barber partially responsible, it prevents either party from suffering the full effect of the losses incurred and prevents these consequences from occurring. Cases 54 and 56 deal with a situation in which a slave is fatally injured by a single person, and is then killed by someone else before theinjury inflicted by the first cannot take effect. These cases are interesting because the second attack caused the deaths of the slaves, but the first attack would have also caused the deaths of the slaves if it could have run its course. The second attack clearly directly caused the deaths of the slaves; The question that is less clear is whether the first attacker would be held responsible for the death of the slaves. Even once this is decided, the question is whether and to what extent both parties should be held responsible. Celsius argues that the first attacker should not be held responsible for killing the slave, but simply for injuring him. The second aggressor would be held entirely responsible for the death of the slave since the injury he inflicted directly caused the death of the slave. In saying this, Celsius endorses the idea that since the injury inflicted by the first attacker did not directly result in the slave's death, he is not responsible for the slave's death at all. However, since the first attacker did inflict an injury on the slave and thus caused the loss of his owner, the first attacker would be responsible for his attack and the injury he inflicted on him. Julian has an opposing view on this type of incident which he explains in Case 56. Julian claims that in a scenario like this, both attackers would be liable under the Lex Aquilia. Julian shows the two attacks as completely independent incidents. He claims that the first attacker should be responsible because the injury he inflicted was surely fatal and, under the Lex Aquilia, a person is responsible if he causes injury to a slave and later dies as a result. of this slave. Furthermore, the second attacker would be responsible because he directly caused the death of the slave, thus leading to the loss of his owner. However, even though both attackers would be entirely responsible for the slave's death, in many cases they would be responsible for different amounts. This happens because the first attacker would be responsible for the maximum value of slaves over the past year from the initial attack, while the second attacker would be responsible for the maximum value of slaves over the past year elapsed from the death of the slave. Julian believes this is a better system, because if only one of the attackers were held responsible, he would go unpunished (for death) for a wrongdoing he is guilty of. Although Julian's system has some merits, the system designed by Celsius seems more useful for this case. The main reason for this is that the Celsius system seemed more practical and easier to implement in the Roman world. If Julian's system were adopted, citizens could be held responsible for the death of a slave when he inflicted an injury that did not cause his death. In a society where medical practice was underdeveloped, it would be very difficult to decide whether the attacker's actions would ultimately have resulted in the slave's death. In Celsius's system, the first attacker would always be held responsible for his misdeeds (in the form of liability for the injury he inflicted) without there being any conflict over whether the injury inflicted by the first attacker The attacker would have caused the death of the slave. Celsius's system allows both the slave owner and the first attacker to be treated fairly. The slave owner is compensated for his loss (by attacker two), and the first attacker is treated fairly since he is only responsible for the loss he inflicted, not the loss he he could have inflicted if attacker two had not intervened..