Custodia

German
At first glance, the sources on custodia liability are characterised by a fundamental contradiction: On the one hand, the liability of a person liable for custodia appears as an automatic consequence of the theft of the thing given to him, which leaves no room for an assessment of his individual conduct. On the other hand, there are enough statements in which the obligation to stand in for custodia is treated like liability for fault or at least equated with it. This discrepancy has triggered a pendulum movement in modern research. At times it has been assumed that custodia denotes a guarantee liability for low chance, and all sources in which it is brought into connection with fault or duty of care are falsified, at other times it has been assumed that in the case of liability for a theft caused by a third party, it is always tacitly assumed that the party obliged to take care must accept the reproach of a breach of duty of care. The dilemma can only be solved if the limitation of the concept of theft in Rome is taken seriously.

English
"Custodia: At first glance, the sources on liability for custodia in Roman law are characterised by a fundamental inconsistency: on the one hand, the liability of a guardian appears as an automatic consequence of a theft of the thing left to him, on the other hand, as a consequence of a breach of due care. This discrepancy has triggered a pendulum movement in modern research. At one time custodia has been declared a guarantee liability, at another a form of liability for fault. The dilemma can only be solved if one seriously considers the limitation of the concept of theft in Rome.