§ 1. ON THE UNJUST DAMAGER IN GENERAL

948. An unjust damager is said to be one who injures another's right, or harms his neighbor in goods, without thence becoming richer of himself or directly.

PRINCIPLES. I. An unjust damager is held to restore an equivalent price, both of the thing damaged and of the other damages which have come from his action and were at least confusedly foreseen by him. The reason is that the injured owner must be made wholly unharmed, according to equality (cf. n. 931). Yet injury is to be estimated not from damage only, but also from the will of the agent (n. 724).

949. II. In order that a damaging action induce an obligation of restitution from the law of nature, a threefold condition is required, namely that the action be strictly, effectively, and formally unjust; and these three things are altogether certain. These are to be explained part by part (cf. Lugo, disp. 8).

Condition 1. It is required that the damaging action be strictly unjust, that is, that one's neighbor has been despoiled of some thing to which he has a strict right. The reason is that the obligation of restoring, as we have already often said, arises from the violation of commutative justice alone (III, 547).

It is explained: 1. The strict right which can be injured is either a right in a thing or a right to a thing, which supposes a legitimate title. You do not have a right to all things to which your neighbor, in conscience, is obligated either from charity or from religion, namely a vow.

2. He violates a strict right who takes away the thing of his neighbor, although he himself abuses it for sinning (see nevertheless n. 1020); indeed although he received it as remuneration, a pact concerning a shameful thing having preceded (n. 1036). Cf. Lehmkuhl, Cas. consc., n. 691.

3. He violates a strict right who inculpably indeed has placed an action harmful to another, but culpably does not impede it from proceeding; for example, if someone does not extinguish a fire applied by himself without fault to another's houses; or does not warn a buyer after he has noticed that he gave poison for a remedy (III, 564, 994; VI, 621). Therefore there is an obligation of restitution.

4. Nevertheless a damager is not held to restitution who had the right of placing an action harmful to another. For the Rule of Law, Law 151, de Reg. Jur., favors him: "No one does damage, except because he does that which he does not have the right to do." Thus a merchant is not unjust who sells at the lowest price, although he injures other merchants; nor a proprietor who turns waters from his own field into another course harmful to his neighbor, lest he himself suffer gravely; nor a smith who sells a sword to a homicide, lest he himself perish by death. - But otherwise, if actions of this kind are placed without a just cause (III, 584, 697). Similarly, the owner does not act unjustly who digs a pit on his own estate, although he intended that an enemy, whom he knows sometimes passes through there illicitly, should fall and break his leg. Lehmkuhl, Cas. consc., n. 672. Nevertheless charity requires that the enemy at least be warned in general.

5. He is also not held to restitution who has injured charity alone, for example if you were conveniently able to impede the burning of another's house and were unwilling; or religion alone, as if you neglected your vow; or piety, for example if you did not feed your needy parents; or legal justice, if, for example, you denied a crime as accused or witness, lest your own or another's goods be applied to the treasury; or distributive justice, if, for example, by distributing alms left by legacy to the poor, you neglected the poorer. And the same must be said of every debt which does not arise from commutative justice (III, 547, 583).

Condition 2. It is required that the damaging action be effectively unjust, that is, a true and efficacious cause of the damage. The reason is clear: for only the author of damage is held to repair it. Therefore it is required: a) that the damage has truly been inflicted; for damage merely willed, just as also that of which you indeed placed the cause, but which another impeded, for example in a fire made by you but extinguished by another, brings no obligation of restitution; b) that the damage has emanated from your action as from its proper cause; for there can be no obligation of restitution unless the cause of the damage is established, and the true influence of this cause into the damage (III, 562, 584; cf. II, 43, 45).

Hence: 1. It does not suffice for the obligation of restitution that injury without damage has intervened. Thus, he who committed adultery without the damaging of another is held to no restitution in conscience, although he can be compelled by a judge to make satisfaction for the injury (III, 556).

2. The occasional cause of damage does not suffice, because it is not an efficacious cause, but only the occasion of an efficacious cause, that is, at whose presence the principal cause acts. Hence, if by occasion of a theft or homicide perpetrated by you, another has been accused and condemned, you are not held to repair his damage. - And the same holds even if you foresaw this or even intended it, unless the circumstances of the action were such that they proximately and morally influenced the imputation against the third party, say if you killed clothed in the garments or arms of Paul (III, 635). - In this last case the guilty person is held from justice to denounce himself, or at least to turn suspicion away from the accused; otherwise he would be held from charity alone. - Hence also, if, by occasion of a violated sacramental seal, Peter has learned the author of a theft, so that through proofs and indications he can reclaim his good before the judge, he, Peter, although he sinned by listening to the thief's confession, is not the efficacious cause of the damage which comes upon the thief from the sentence of the judge. Linz. Quart. Schr., 1906, p. 829. Ami du Cl., 1905, p. 971, certainly otherwise. Cf. the things to be said in n. 1188.

3. A cause without which the effect would not occur does not of itself suffice; for example, if you did not return the sword, another would not be killed: from this you do not become the efficacious cause of the damage.

4. A remote and accidental cause does not suffice; for a cause of this sort does not of itself and directly influence the damage, but through some unforeseen and improbable accident; and therefore it cannot be called the efficacious cause of the damage (III, 632). Now damage is judged to follow by accident when for the most part it does not arise from the cause posited, or even could not arise from that alone without the concurrence of other causes.

5. Likewise he is not held to restitution, according to the more common and more probable opinion, who by his bad example has induced others to inflict damage. For bad example is not properly a cause positively influencing the damage, because of itself it does not tend to this, that it impel others to doing the same thing; but it is a mere occasion at whose presence others, of their own accord, take up the thought and counsel of inflicting damage. See the things said above under 2. - But it must be said otherwise if the example should put on the nature of counsel or mandate, for example if the leader of soldiers began to plunder (II, 44).

Note. a) According to grave authors, sometimes a cause which ordinarily influences damage by accident is considered as a cause causing damage of itself, if it is placed solely with the intention of harming. Causes of this sort would be, for example, to steal something small from a miser so that he may become sick; to place a snare in a forest so that an enemy, rarely passing through, perhaps may bring evil upon himself; to kindle a fire in a remote place so that, if perhaps a wind arises, the granaries of the enemy may be burned. - Nevertheless it is not to be denied that this theory concerning the efficacy of intention with respect to action does not please all, as we noted in n. 727. See Lehmkuhl, Cas. consc., n. 713.

b) Since attention should rather be paid to the action considered in itself, it follows that if someone culpably placed the cause of damage and afterward, led by repentance, tried to impede the damage, but in vain, he is nevertheless held to restitution. For retractation takes away fault before God and contumacy before the Church (n. 1264), but it does not change the natural influence of the action. - Except if it is a question of counsel, whose influence revocation takes away (n. 982). Cf. St. Alph., III, 559; VII, 40.

Condition 3. It is required that the damaging action be formally unjust, that is, theologically culpable.

For a twofold fault is distinguished, namely theological and juridic.

Theological fault is the omission of ordinary diligence which the matter demands and which is customarily employed by the timorous in their own office; and indeed a voluntary omission, whether in itself or in its cause. According to the degree of the damaging, it constitutes sin, whether grave or light.

Juridic fault is the omission of diligence required by positive Law or by the nature of the contract for forestalling damages, although in the omission no theological fault intervenes. This omission is called lata fault if the diligence which men commonly are accustomed to employ in a similar business is omitted; light, if the diligence which diligent men, as a good father of a family, employ is omitted; very light, if the diligence which the most diligent put forth is omitted (III, 549). - Juridic fault becomes theological fault only then when due diligence is advertently omitted; because, when there is no advertence, not even in the cause or in a confused way,

there is lacking consent of the will into the damage, or the mind of harming. - Very often broad juridic fault has theological fault as its companion.

Therefore the sense of the third condition here is: In order that there be an obligation of restitution, there is required, on the part of the one causing damage, broad juridic fault placed advertently.

It is proved: "In order that conscience remain obligated, it is necessary that the delict have been perpetrated in conscience" (H. Ap., X, 39). Thus from natural Law.

Hence there is no obligation of restitution, at least before the sentence of a judge: a) If you killed an enemy whom, in killing, you thought to be a wild beast, even if you rejoice after the fact. - b) If a thief, by occasion of the theft, indeed efficaciously, but beyond all advertence, inflicted a new damage, for example because by overturning a lamp he excited a great fire. - c) If a maidservant from merely juridic fault breaks the crystal vessels of the owner. - d) If an industrial man omitted in his workshop the slight precautions prescribed by law, while ordering all else prudently, and a great misfortune occurred (Lehmkuhl, Cas. consc., n. 665). - Some authors indeed judge that there is an obligation of restitution if someone, in doubt whether damage may come upon his neighbor from his action, omits diligence required only by law. Yet this obligation is not established (III, 551).

Note. 1. From merely juridic fault there sometimes arises an obligation of restitution; and this can happen under a twofold head: a) By force of positive law, after the sentence of a judge. Thus a judge can justly condemn you to the reparation of damage truly inflicted by your animals or by boys committed to you, without theological fault;¹ and such a sentence obliges in conscience from legal justice (cf. n. 192). Yet the law itself does not oblige before the sentence, unless theological fault was present, as is commonly taught (cf. n. 933). b) By force of an express convention in contracts, or in fulfilling offices; for you can often justly obligate yourself even concerning a fortuitous event, as will be said in its place (cf. n. 1162).

We said by force of an express convention, in contracts; for Lessius, Lugo, and others teach very probably that it is not equitable to oblige someone in conscience to a grave penalty, without grave fault of his, whenever it is not established that he wished to subject himself to juridic fault alone (III, 554). - The same reason holds for quasi-contracts, or fulfilling offices. Wherefore no one obliges physicians, advocates, confessors, and theologians to restitution from juridic fault alone; for if the matter were otherwise, no upright and timorous man would wish to discharge these offices, which would fall to the damage of the republic (III, 555). See nevertheless what is to be said in n. 974.

2. From venial theological fault, sometimes, although grave damage is truly present, there arises no obligation of restitution: if namely the theological fault is venial by reason of inadvertence or indeliberation. Thus the more common and more probable opinion. An obligation of restitution under grave sin is not induced, because such an obligation does not have proportion with light fault; not under light sin, because a light obligation does not have proportion with grave matter; so much the more because fault imperfectly deliberated cannot induce a perfect obligation, just as in contracts and vows an obligation does not arise from consent not fully deliberated.²

3. Finally, all know that theological fault which is venial by reason of the damaging obliges to restitution under light sin (cf. n. 927).

It is added, 4. that these three things be altogether certain. Doubts concerning a damaging action can be moved: a) before the fact; concerning these antecedent doubts we are not speaking. All know that an action is licit to no one concerning which one antecedently and positively doubts whether it is unjust or not (cf. the things said in n. 81). b) After the fact, that is, subsequently to the damaging action already placed. But the object of doubt in the case can be either the existence of the damage, or the efficacy of the action, or its injustice taken objectively, or the theological culpability of the agent; and we say: as long as these doubts have not passed into certitude, there is no obligation of restitution. The reason is that, where it is a question of goods of fortune, no one ought to be deprived of his certain right unless it is established that the right has been lost (nn. 44, 850). Compare St. Alph., III, 562, 658; Conf. dir., X, 20.

Yet a twofold exception must be admitted: 1. If several have acted by common counsel, and afterward a doubt arises in what degree each concurred. 2. If someone inflicting damage notices that, by his action, he is the cause why the author of certain damage becomes uncertain. Cf. n. 963, 2.

950. Special question: On error in damaging.

In the matter of damaging, there can be a twofold invincible error: one concerning the object, the other concerning the person.

I. ERROR CONCERNING THE OBJECT. If someone thinks from invincible error that the damage inflicted by him is much less than it really is, he is probably not held to restoring except in proportion to the known damage. The reason: that damage which is not known, at least in a confused way, is not judged willed.

Thus, therefore, he who throws into the sea another's gem worth 100 aurei, thinking it to be worth only 10, must restore only 10 aurei (III, 613). See nevertheless the note to be placed below.

II. ERROR CONCERNING THE PERSON. If someone, intending to harm one person with any other excluded, harms another by invincible error, he probably cannot be obligated to restitution in the internal forum before the sentence of a judge. The reason is that it is not enough that the damaging action be unjust, but it is required that it be formally injurious toward the one damaged; and therefore error concerning the person is a substantial error.

Therefore if someone, wishing to kill Caius, kills Titius; intending to burn the house of an enemy, burns the house of a friend, etc., he will not be constrained to restitution. Thus St. Alphonsus (III, 628, 629), Lugo, Croix, and others.

Another probable opinion is given concerning this question. Besides Bonacina and Haunold, recent authors defend it, such as Lehmkuhl, Vermeersch, Noldin, Tanquerey, Schindler, Pruner. They affirm that in the case there is an obligation of restitution, because, they say, that action is unjust, an efficacious cause of damage, and theologically culpable, and error concerning the person is only accidental. These arguments are indeed not slight; nevertheless the reasoning of our holy Doctor is not to be despised, which even the adversaries concede; hence the possessor is to be favored.

Note. Yet in each mode of erring there is an obligation of restitution: a) If the damager was actually so disposed in soul that, even if he had known, nevertheless he would have inflicted the damage; because then ignorance was not the cause of the damaging. b) If he has been condemned by a judge; because in doubt one must stand for the judge (III, l. c.). Cf. Genicot, I, 522; Linz. Quart. Schr., 1905, p. 890; Ami du Cl., 1905, p. 984.