The Roman 'cases' are not judgments in the modern common-law sense but responsa and quaestiones recorded by the iurisprudentes. Each represents a doctrinal position, often contested, that shaped the application of chapter 3.
The slave wounded by negligent medical treatment
Ulpian (ad Edictum 18, D.9.2.7.8) discusses a physician who undertakes to treat a slave's wound and, through negligent surgery or aftercare, causes the slave to die or suffer permanent harm. Ulpian holds that the physician is liable under chapter 3 for corrumpere: he has spoiled the slave's health. If the physician was merely unskilled (imperitus) rather than negligent, he is still liable—medical incompetence counts as culpa. The valuation includes not only the diminution in the slave's market price but also consequential loss such as the cost of hiring a replacement and lost productivity. This responsum established that professional negligence fell squarely within the lex Aquilia and that culpa extended to failure to meet the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner.
The barber who cuts a customer's throat
Mela, as reported by Ulpian (D.9.2.11pr), posits a barber shaving a customer in a public place. A ball game nearby causes a distraction; the barber turns his head and slashes the customer's throat with the razor. Proculus held that the barber was liable under chapter 3 for culpa: one who undertakes a dangerous task in a risky location must exercise due care. The barber's want of attention constituted negligence. This scenario illustrates the Romans' flexible concept of fault, encompassing momentary inattention and poor judgment about where to perform hazardous activities.
Burning another's crops: the arson cases
Several fragments treat urere. In one, a farmer burns stubble on his own land; the fire escapes and consumes his neighbour's grain (D.9.2.30.3, Paulus). If the farmer failed to take precautions (e.g. burning on a windy day without clearing firebreaks), he is liable for culpa. If the fire spread despite all reasonable care, he escapes liability—the damage was not iniuria. Another scenario involves a landowner who lawfully burns rubbish on a calm day, but a sudden gust carries embers onto neighbouring property. The jurists debated whether sudden natural events (vis maior) negatived iniuria; the majority held that liability required fault, not strict responsibility.
The dyer who spoils garments
Ulpian (D.9.2.9.3) considers a dyer who accepts clothing for dyeing and ruins it by using the wrong mordant or overheating the vat. The dyer is liable under chapter 3 for corrumpere. The measure of damages is the value of the garment plus any consequential loss, such as the client's inability to attend a public ceremony and resultant reputational harm. This case affirmed that contractual bailees could incur Aquilian liability alongside (or in lieu of) contractual remedies. It also illustrates how corrumpere reached acts that diminished utility without physical destruction.
Wounding a valuable slave on the eve of sale
Julian (D.9.2.22pr) discusses a slave trained as an actor, due to perform in a lucrative show. The defendant wounds the slave two days before the performance, rendering him unable to appear. The owner sues under chapter 3. Julian holds that the plaintiff may recover the highest value of the slave in the preceding thirty days plus the lost performance fees and hire charges, provided they were foreseeable and proximate. The thirty-day valuation captures the slave's market peak, and the id quod interest principle adds consequential loss. This responsum illustrates the expansive approach to damages and the jurists' willingness to transcend the statutory text.
Breaking amphoras and spilling wine
In several fragments (e.g. D.9.2.27.21, Ulpian), the jurists treat breaking storage vessels (dolia, amphorae). If a carter negligently upsets amphoras, spilling wine, he is liable for frangere (breaking the jars) and for the value of the wine lost—treated as consequential damage or as a separate instance of corrumpere. The fragments debate whether the wine itself is 'broken'—the conclusion is that spilling is subsumed under corrumpere or analogised to frangere if the loss flows directly from the physical act.
The builder who demolishes a neighbour's wall
Ulpian and Paulus discuss a builder who, in demolishing his own structure, negligently causes a neighbour's wall to collapse (D.9.2.27.29). He is liable under chapter 3 for frangere. The damages include the cost of rebuilding (valued as at the date of damage) plus any consequential harm, such as damage to goods stored in the collapsed building. The cases emphasise that liability extends to negligent construction and demolition—precursors to the modern law of nuisance and negligence in building works.
These 'landmark cases' collectively demonstrate the breadth of chapter 3, the centrality of fault, the flexibility of valuation, and the jurists' readiness to extend the statute by interpretation and analogy.