User:Jcbh803/sandbox

The first chapter
The first chapter provided a remedy for the killing of slaves and four footed grazing animals. The compensation was calculated by reference to the highest value (plurimi) of the slave or animal in the previous year, thus a plaintiff could be over compensated if say, a slave that had been severely injured within the previous year was killed - he would receive the value of a fully able slave. This can be viewed as a penal aspect of the Lex but it is better to see it as aimed at ensuring full compensation, and dispensing with difficulties that might otherwise have occurred with proving the value within shifting market prices.

Juristic approach- Occiderit: In relation to the first chapter, there has been considerable debate concerning the original meaning accorded to the statutory verb, however by the time classical period it is clear that the jurists adhered to a remarkably narrow interpretation. Therefore before assessing what effect juristic interpretation had on the scope of occidere it is necessary to answer the logically prior question namely what was the original scope occidere when the Lex was enacted. This must essentially be gleaned from the few texts we have on this topic surviving in the Digests. A viable argument can certainly be made that in the Republic and therefore when the Lex was originally enacted, the scope of Occidere was much wider than we find in the classical period. The central tenet of this theory is a text attributed to Alfrenus at D. 9.2.52.2 (about muleteers on the Capitaline Hill) where he seems to be considering granting an Aquilian action notwithstanding that there was no direct contact (copore copori requirement). However there are also strong arguments that this text cannot be taken to show there was a wider interpretation of occidere early on, for instance it is not clear that the text is dealing with death as opposed to injury. Either way by the classical period, as already mentioned, the undoubtedly restrictive.

There were two schools of legal thought to analyse here, each used different methodology when defining the scope of occidere and so while both adhered to a narrow interpretation, they yielded different opinions on the same facts in a few cases. The Sabinian approach is authoritatively stated by Gaius and is the so called corpore corpori test. The Proculian school favoured a strict statutory interpretation approach.

The Third Chapter
The statutory verbs of the third chapter were "urere rupert frangere" suggest a serious level of damage before the chapter would be engaged. However we are told that all the 'veteres' (jurists of the republican period) understood corrumpere 'to spoil', instead of rumpere 'to break' thus encompassing all the statutory verbs. This also considerably extended its ambit, such that any physical deterioration could be brought within the third chapter.