Imperitia: The Responsibility of Skilled Workers in Classical Roman Law

BY THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY A.D., the Roman jurists were invoking the term imperitia, lack of skill or experience, as a basis for the legal responsibility of skilled individuals who damaged another's property in the course of their work. The term is invoked in a broad range of situations and doubtless was applicable in innumerable others of similar type. For example, you entrust a gem to a jeweler to be set. It breaks in the process. A doctor, hired to perform surgery, further harms the patient. You give a cup to an artisan to be carved. The cup shatters. ¹ All of these examples, taken from the Digest, presuppose a similar situation: A person is employed to do a job and is entrusted with the material necessary for the completion of the work, usually a moveable object, a slave, or an animal. In the course of the work, this material, whether inanimate or animate, sustains damage. Who should be responsible and on what grounds?

A series of texts preserved in the Digest illustrates how, over the course of the classical period of Roman jurisprudence, the jurists articulated and interpreted imperitia as a key concept for use in legal disputes dealing with a broad range of individuals employed in the workforce of the empire. As increased scholarly attention is devoted to the study of the Roman working population from a legal perspective, an examination of imperitia will shed light on one of the principal substantive tools developed to regulate artisans and skilled workers of all kinds. ² The surviving Digest texts permit the reconstruction of key elements of the jurists' conception of the employment relationship as it was encompassed in the contract of locatio conductio operis, the contract of lease and hire of a job. ³ The question of the worker's responsibility for skilled work is a central element of the law with regard to this contract. I will argue that the jurists' development of imperitia as a legal doctrine was the product of a complex relationship between law and its social and economic context. ⁴ This process of legal development reveals a great deal about the methods the jurists employed in dealing with certain segments of the Roman workforce. It emerges with relative clarity from the texts that the jurists presume that these contracts are designed for the hire of workers who are capable of assuming a considerable degree of risk for the skilled execution of their work as an implied feature of the contract. But the jurists never state clearly what standard should be used to evaluate the worker's performance. Analysis of the evidence shows that the jurists tend to favor a method of evaluation that focuses on the quality of the performance based upon external, objective criteria, rather than the individualized fault of the worker. ⁵ From this reconstruction of how the law functioned, one can speculate about what the advantages of this regime were from the jurists' point of view and how adequately or inadequately jurists' law functioned with regard to the diversity of workers known to have existed in the workforce of the empire. The results of this investigation have implications for our understanding of the activities of skilled and craft workers, especially in the city of Rome. The inhabitants of cities in the empire became increasingly accustomed to the availability of a wide variety of goods and services and in all likelihood purchased them or contracted for them from individuals with whom they had no other connections, that is, the workers themselves or merchants or traders. ⁶ The legal regime described here presupposes the existence of a multiplicity of such workers whose concerns penetrated the legal system, who came to the attention of the Roman jurists, and who were, apparently, able to maneuver to some extent within the legal system. ⁷

The concept of imperitia originated as the jurists developed...