increase the lord's liability for his household, and make him surety for his men's good conduct. If they incur a fine to the king and run away, the lord has to pay it unless he can clear himself of complicity. But I cannot say that I find until a later period the unlimited liability of master for servant which was worked out on the Continent, both by the German tribes and at Rome. Whether the principle when established was an indigenous growth, or whether the last step was taken under the influence of the Roman law, of which Bracton made great use, I cannot say. It is enough that the soil was ready for it, and that it took root at an early day.[1] This is all that need be said here with regard to the liability of a master for the misdeeds of his servants.
It is next to be shown what became of the principle as applied to animals. Nowadays a man is bound at his peril to keep his cattle from trespassing, and he is liable for damage done by his dog or by any fierce animal, if he has notice of a tendency in the brute to do the harm complained of. The question is whether any connection can be established between these very sensible and intelligible rules of modern law and the surrender directed by King Alfred.
Let us turn to one of the old books of the Scotch law, where the old principle still appears in full force and is stated with its reasons as then understood.[2]
“Gif ane wylde or head-strang horse, carries ane man
- ↑ Cf. Record in Molloy, Book 2, ch. 3, § 16, 24 Ed. III.: “Visum fuit curiæ, quod unusqnisque magister navis tenetur respondere du quaeunque transgressione per servientes suos in navi sua facta.” The Laws of Oleren were relied on in this case. Cf. Stat of the Staple, 27 Ed. III., Stat. 2, c. 19. Later, the influence of the Roman law is clear.
- ↑ Quon. Attach., c. 48, pl. 10 et seq. Cf. The Forme and Maner of Baron Courts, c. 62 et seq.
