Culpa

Lat. In the civil and common law. Neglect; negligence; carelessness; fault;— ^the opposite of diligentia, (q. y.) A term frequently used in the law of bailments, expressing a mean between accident {casus) on the one side, and fraud (dolus) on the other.

Jones on Bailm. 8. Jleinecc.

Elem. Jur. Civ, lib.

3, tit. 14, § 784.

Three degrees of culpa are recognised by the civilians, as well as in the common law of bailments; lata culpa, levis culpa and levissima culpa.

Id. ibid. § 787. Jones on Bailm. 21, 22. Story on Bailm. §18.

Lata culpa; gross fault or neglect; the omission of that care which even inattentive or thoughtless men never fail to take of their own property.

Jones on Bailm. 2 1, 22. Duncan, J., 1 4 Serg. dt Eawle, 276.

Otherwise expressed by Sir William Jones as the want of that care which every man of common sense, however inattentive, takes of his own property.

Jones on Bailm. 8, 118. 2 Kent's Com. 660. See Story on Bailm. § 16.

— Qui ne ed quidem diligentid qud omnes, etiam dissoluti homines uti so Unt, utuntur, latam [culpam] committere dicuntur; they who not observe even that care which all men, even the careless, are in the habit of observing, are said to commit [or be guilty of 1 gross fault, or neglect. Jaanecc. Elem. Jur. Civ. lib. 3, tit. 14, § 787. Levis culpa; ordinary fault or neglect; the want of that diligence which the generality of mankind use in their own concerns, that is, of ordinary care. Jones on Bailm. 22. The omission of that care which every man of common prudence, and capable of governing a family, takes of his own concerns. J&. 1 1 8. Qui omittunt diligentiam a frugi patrefamilias adhiberi solitam, levem [culpam committere dicuntur;] they who omit that care which is usually taken by a careful head of a family, are said to be guilty of ordinary fault or neglect. Heinecc. Elem. Jur. Civ. lib. 3, tit. 14, § 787. Levissima culpa; slight fault or neglect; the omission of that care which very attentive and vigilant persons take of their own goods, or, in other words, of very exact diligence. Jones on Bailm. 22. The omission of that diligence which very circumspect and thoughtful persons use in securing their own go^s and chattels. Id. 118. Qui earn non adhibent diligentiam quam solent patresfamilias ad rem attentissimi, culpam levissimam [committere dicuntur.'] Heinecc. Elem. Jur. Civ. lib. 3, tit. 14, § 787. Miwttm. calpa plaae delo cempara Mtar. Gross neglect may clearly be put on a level with fraud, [is clearly equivalent to fraud.] Dig. 11. 6. 1. Otherwise expressed, i-ata calpa delo a^alparatar. na^aa aecliseatla calpa eat, magaa •aipa aaias eat. Gross negligence is fault; gross fault is fraud. Dig. 60. 16. 226. The doctrine embodied in these maxims, in the literal sense given to them, is adopted by Sir William Jones in his Essay on the Law of Biulments, and seems to have been formerly recognised to nearly the same extent in the common law. The modem doctrine, however, is that gross negligence, though it may be evidence of fraud, is not the same thing;

— or, in other words, it may in certain cases amount to fraud, but it is not fraud by inference of law, but matter of fact for a jury. Parker, C. J., 17 Mass, JR. 600. Lord Tlndal, C. J., 2 Man. d: Or. 862. Lord Denman, C. J., 4 Ad. d: Ell. 876. Story on Bailm. § 19. 2 Kent's Com. 660, and note. * The true interpretation of the civil law maxims depends obviously on the construction to be given to the emphatic terms culpa and dolus, both of which have been made the subjects of much discussion by civilians and jurists. The exact meaning of culpa, indeed, does not seem to have been entirely settled in the Roman law. It is usually translated negligence, and is expressly used by Justinian as a synonyme of that word, {negligentia,) and also of desidia, (remissness.) Inst. 3.

26. 9.

But the language of the rule in the Digests already quoted,

Magna negligentia culpa est

magna culpa dolus est, — obviously makes it to be something more than mere negligence, being a high degree of negligence, just as fraud was a high degree of culpa; and the same idea is very significantly conveyed by that common expression in modem law, — culpable negligence, — which clearly implies that all negligence is not culpable. It will be seen, moreover, that the maxim last quoted fixes culpa as a mean between negligentia on the one side, and dolus on the other. Sir William Jones attributes this want of uniformity or precision, in the use of the word culpa, to the intrinsic poverty of the Latin language, as compared with the Greek, and the want of proper words to express the various shades of fault.

Jones on Bailm. 33.

Heinecciiis defines culpa from the Digests to he factum inconsultum quo alter injuria loeditur, vel quod quum a diligente provideri potuerit, non sit provisum; an act done without purpose, (or settled design,) by which another is injured; or an injurious act which no care was taken to foresee and prevent, when it might have been foreseen and prevented by a careful person.

Seinecc.

El. Jur. Civ. lib.

3, tit 14, § 784.

And see Ayliffe Pand. b.

2, tit. 13, cited in Story on Bailm. § 20 b, note.

As to the meaning of the important word dolus^ see Dolus,