• Research visit from 1st August to 31th December 2024

PhD thesis "Actio de Pauperie et Natura Animalis. Animal Nature and Liability for Damage Done by Animals." aims to present a complete picture of the liability for damage done by animals in classical roman law. A proper reconstruction of the roman idea and, what is equally relevant, the motives standing behind such would make it possible to draw the later path of the roman thought in European legal tradition.
Apart from being highly rationale, the liability for damage deriving from actio de pauperie is also extremely complex. A more profound analysis of the premises for liability presented by Ulpian in book 18 of his commentary on the edict (D. 9,1,1,7) leads to the conclusion that the decision on whether actio de pauperie is applicable in casu or not can hardly be made with certainty. That is due to the lack of definition or rather, bearing in mind the roman natural reluctance for defining, at least hints of explanation of animal nature.
Without previous decodification of the term „natura” it cannot be decided which actions of a given animal constitute a breach of such and in consequence comply with one of the basic premises of pauperies, i. e. acting contra naturam. In order to achieve that, the extra-legal factors, such as the philosophical insight on the animal nature must be taken into account.
This thesis however is not aimed at proving the existence of the influence of greek and roman philosophy on roman law or lack of such phenomenon. It is rather to set a legal institution in the intellectual context adequate to its origin and the period of its application. Not only is it the goal of such approach to avoid anachronistic interpretations but also to demonstrate that the law is not detached from the surrounding realm and constitutes a living organism susceptible to influence of the social mentality.