One of the most famous cases of Roman Law is Case 61 in our casebook also known as “A Barber Cuts 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 "rather hard" and the ball hit the barber causing him to slip his hand, cutting the slave's throat. This situation poses a difficult problem in deciding who is responsible for this loss, the baseball players, the barber, or the slave himself. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe two main points of view of this case are those of Ulpian and Mela. Mela believes that the barber is to blame, thus making him responsible. Culpa concerns the question of whether an action was wrongful due to a party's negligence, recklessness, or breach of duty of care. In this situation, Mela argues that the barber could have participated in the Culpa by choosing to perform a dangerous action (shaving the slave's face) in an area where the ball is typically played. Mela claims that since the barber chose to conduct his “unsafe” business in an area where it may not necessarily be safe, then he should be liable for any damages that occur as a result of 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 dangerous. Ulpian disagrees as he believes some of the blame should be placed on the slave. Ulpian believes that, by agreeing to have his hair cut in an area where one typically played, the slave himself is participating in an imprudence and therefore the barber should not be held fully responsible. That is to say that the slave's recklessness is the main issue, as he should never have entered into that dangerous situation where he would have his face shaved in a typically played area. Both of these jurists have good points, the blame should not fall entirely on either the barber or the slave. Both took part in some sort of recklessness and therefore neither should be totally responsible for the loss that occurred. Certainly the barber participated in recklessness by starting his business in an area where play was typically played, but the slave also participated in recklessness by allowing his face to be shaved in a place where danger was likely to occur. Furthermore, both Mela and Ulpian's decisions have consequences that fall short of what is desired. For example, if Mela were to be found fair and the barber was held fully liable, barbers would have to pay extreme attention to where they perform their service. The number of people willing to provide this service would also decrease significantly, as the risk of having to pay full compensation for this loss would be too great a danger for many. However, Ulpian's decision also has invisible consequences. If the slave were held fully responsible for the loss suffered, the slave owner would receive no compensation for the slave's death. This decision burdens the slave owner with the loss suffered when he did not participate in any form of Culpa. By holding both the slave and the barber partially liable, this prevents both parties from suffering the full effect of their losses and prevents these consequences from occurring. Cases 54 and 56 concern a situation in which a slave is fatally wounded by a person, and is subsequently killed by someonemore before the wound inflicted by the former can take effect. These cases are interesting because the second attack caused the death of the slaves, but the first attack would also have caused the death of the slaves, had it been allowed to run its course. The second attack clearly directly caused the deaths of the slaves; the less clear question is whether the attack can be considered to have been caused by the first aggressor enslaving death at all. Even once this is decided, the question is whether both parties are held accountable and to what extent. Celsius argues that the first attacker should not be held responsible for killing the slave, but simply for injuring him. The second attacker would meanwhile be held fully responsible for the slave's death since the wound he inflicted would have directly caused the slave's death. By saying this, Celsius supports the idea that since the wound inflicted by the first attacker did not directly lead to the slave's death, he is not responsible for the slave's death at all. However, since the first attacker inflicted a wound on the slave and thus caused the loss of his owner, the first attacker would be responsible for his attack and the inflicted wound. Julian has an opposing view on this type of incident which he explains in case 56. Julian argues that in a scenario like this, both attackers would be liable under the Lex Aquilia. Julian shows the two attacks as completely independent episodes. He argues that the first assailant should be liable as the wound he inflicted was certainly fatal and under the Lex Aquilia a person is liable if he causes a wound to a slave and subsequently dies from that slave. Furthermore, the second attacker would be responsible as he directly caused the death of the slave, thus causing the loss of his owner. However, although both attackers would be fully responsible for the slave's death, in many cases they would be liable for different amounts. This occurs because the first attacker would be responsible for the maximum value of the slave in the last year since the initial attack, while the second attacker would be responsible for the maximum value of the slave in the last year since the slave's death. Julian believes that this is a better system since if only one of the attackers were held responsible, he would go unpunished (by death) for a misdeed of which he was guilty. Although Julian's system has some merits, the system devised by Celsius seems more useful for this case. The main reason for this is that the Celsius system seems 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 they inflicted a wound that would not have caused their death. In a society where medical practice was underdeveloped it would be very difficult to decide whether the aggressor's actions would eventually lead to the slave's death. In the Celsius system the first aggressor would still be held accountable for his misdeeds (in the form of liability for the wound he inflicted) without the conflict over whether the wound inflicted by the aggressor would have caused the slave's death. 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 liable for the loss he inflicted and not the loss he might have inflicted if attacker two had not intervened. The above The case has been discussed.