In the Roman law we find the similar principles of the noxoe deditio gradually leading to further results.  The Twelve Tables (451 B.C.) provided that, if an animal had done damage, either the animal was to be surrendered or the damage paid for. 6 We learn from Gains that the same rule was applied to the torts of children or slaves, 7 and there is some trace of it with regard to inanimate things.

The Roman lawyers, not looking beyond their own [9] system or their own time, drew on their wits for an explanation which would show that the law as they found it was reasonable.  Gaius said that it was unjust that the fault of children or slaves should be a source of loss to their parents or owners beyond their own bodies, and Ulpian reasoned that a fortiori this was true of things devoid of life, and therefore incapable of fault. 1 This way of approaching the question seems to deal with the right of surrender as if it were a limitation of a liability incurred by a parent or owner, which would naturally and in the first instance be unlimited.  But if that is what was meant, it puts the cart before the horse.  The right of surrender was not introduced as a limitation of liability, but, in Rome and Greece alike, payment was introduced as the alternative of a failure to surrender.

The action was not based, as it would be nowadays, on the fault of the parent or owner.  If it had been, it would always have been brought against the person who had control of the slave or animal at the time it did the harm complained of, and who, if any one, was to blame for not preventing the injury.  So far from this being the course, the person to be sued was the owner at the time of suing.  The action followed the guilty thing into whosesoever hands it came. 2 And in curious contrast with the principle as inverted to meet still more modern views of public policy, if the animal was of a wild nature, that is, in the very case of the most ferocious animals, the owner ceased to be liable the moment it escaped, because at that moment he ceased to be owner. 3 There [10] seems to have been no other or more extensive liability by the old law, even where a slave was guilty with his master’s knowledge, unless perhaps he was a mere tool in his master’s hands. 1 Gains and Ulpian showed an inclination to cut the noxoe deditio down to a privilege of the owner in case of misdeeds committed without his knowledge; but Ulpian is obliged to admit, that by the ancient law, according to Celsus, the action was noxal where a slave was guilty even with the privity of his master. 2

All this shows very clearly that the liability of the owner was merely a way of getting at the slave or animal which was the immediate cause of offence.  In other words, vengeance on the immediate offender was the object of the Greek and early Roman process, not indemnity from the master or owner.  The liability of the owner was simply a liability of the offending thing.  In the primitive customs of Greece it was enforced by a judicial process expressly directed against the object, animate or inanimate.  The Roman Twelve Tables made the owner, instead of the thing itself, the defendant, but did not in any way change the ground of liability, or affect its limit.  The change was simply a device to allow the owner to protect his interest. 3