LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1
SEMESTER 2 – 2022 (UNIQ NO: 826474)
, Question 1(a)
There are three remedies available in South African law of delict: the actio legis
Aquiliae, the actio iniuriarum and the action for pain and suffering. The actio legis
Aquiliae provides for damages on account of the unlawful and culpable causing of any
patrimonial loss; with the actio iniuriarum, satisfaction may be recovered for an
unlawful and intentional personality infringement; the action for pain and suffering
provides for damages for non-patrimonial loss (injury to personality) on account of the
unlawful and culpable infringement of the physical-mental integrity; as well as in terms
of certain other actions. The last-mentioned action developed in Roman-Dutch law.
Actio legis Aquiliae
Under Roman law, the lex Aquilia was originally only applicable to certain forms of
damage to things (corporeal assets). It dealt only with the killing or wounding of a slave
or four-footed animal, and the burning, breaking and destroying of other things. The
Aquilian action was furthermore only available to the owner of the damaged property.
Over the course of time, the field of application of the Aquilian action has been
extended considerably, as a result of extensive interpretation of the lex and the
granting of actiones utiles and in factum. Consequently, Aquilian liability could ensue
after any kind of physical infringement of a thing. A further development was that the
wrongdoer had to compensate for the damage that had been caused to the thing itself,
and also for all patrimonial damage that resulted from his wrongful act (id quod
interest). In Justinian’s time, the extension was such that, apart from the owner, other
holders of real rights – and in at least one instance the holder of a personal right in
respect of the thing (the colonus partiarius) – were also protected against damage to
property.
Additionally, the actio legis Aquiliae was applicable to two further instances of
patrimonial loss resulting from bodily injuries: a father could claim for patrimonial loss
suffered as a result of the injury of his child, while a free man (liber homo) could claim
for patrimonial loss resulting from his own personal injuries.
In Roman-Dutch law, the dimensions of Aquilian liability underwent beyond the limits
of Roman law. Firstly, the requirement of physical impairment of a thing was no longer
insisted upon. Secondly, damages could be claimed with the Aquilian action for
ASSIGNMENT 1
SEMESTER 2 – 2022 (UNIQ NO: 826474)
, Question 1(a)
There are three remedies available in South African law of delict: the actio legis
Aquiliae, the actio iniuriarum and the action for pain and suffering. The actio legis
Aquiliae provides for damages on account of the unlawful and culpable causing of any
patrimonial loss; with the actio iniuriarum, satisfaction may be recovered for an
unlawful and intentional personality infringement; the action for pain and suffering
provides for damages for non-patrimonial loss (injury to personality) on account of the
unlawful and culpable infringement of the physical-mental integrity; as well as in terms
of certain other actions. The last-mentioned action developed in Roman-Dutch law.
Actio legis Aquiliae
Under Roman law, the lex Aquilia was originally only applicable to certain forms of
damage to things (corporeal assets). It dealt only with the killing or wounding of a slave
or four-footed animal, and the burning, breaking and destroying of other things. The
Aquilian action was furthermore only available to the owner of the damaged property.
Over the course of time, the field of application of the Aquilian action has been
extended considerably, as a result of extensive interpretation of the lex and the
granting of actiones utiles and in factum. Consequently, Aquilian liability could ensue
after any kind of physical infringement of a thing. A further development was that the
wrongdoer had to compensate for the damage that had been caused to the thing itself,
and also for all patrimonial damage that resulted from his wrongful act (id quod
interest). In Justinian’s time, the extension was such that, apart from the owner, other
holders of real rights – and in at least one instance the holder of a personal right in
respect of the thing (the colonus partiarius) – were also protected against damage to
property.
Additionally, the actio legis Aquiliae was applicable to two further instances of
patrimonial loss resulting from bodily injuries: a father could claim for patrimonial loss
suffered as a result of the injury of his child, while a free man (liber homo) could claim
for patrimonial loss resulting from his own personal injuries.
In Roman-Dutch law, the dimensions of Aquilian liability underwent beyond the limits
of Roman law. Firstly, the requirement of physical impairment of a thing was no longer
insisted upon. Secondly, damages could be claimed with the Aquilian action for
