Kilka uwag na temat przyczyn wprowadzenia edyktów pretorskich „in factum adversus nautas caupones stabularios” oraz „furti adversus nautas caupones stabularios”

Tomasz Palmirski

Abstrakt

Protection to people who transported their goods by ships, stayed at inns or who left their horses in stables in case they suffered the damage of their things being robbed or damaged was served by the praetor in his edict (in factum adversus nautas caupones stabularios).

Shipowners (exercitores navis), innkeepers (caupones) and stable owners (stabularii) were also responsible for the things brought in with the guests by the right of the receptum nautarum cauponum stabulariorum on the basis of the in factum complaint (known also as the actio de recepto). The receptum became unnecessary in the course of time since taking responsibility by the aforementioned owners took place ipso iure at the moment of actual bringing in things by the guests and it was meant as a tacit consent. The boundary of this liability was very extensive (reaching even the vis maior). Eventually, since the time of Labeo the exceptio in favour of the exercitor navis was introduced in cases of damage caused by a shipwreck or a pirate’s raid, and later was extended to cases of fire, deluge, falling of a building and riots. This type of limited, objective liability was termed as the custodia. The actio de recepto considering its reipersecutorial character was included in the actiones perpetuae and vested also against the heirs of a person liable ex recepto.

This article is the general introduction into the aforementioned ex recepto liability and also into the circumstances which accompanied issuing the above praetors’ edict.

Kwartalnik ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.
Pierwotną wersją czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna publikowana w internecie.