Q3. There is a clear parallel between the Roman crime and the civil tort; but the analogy should not be pushed too far." What are the main similarities and differences between the Roman delict and the common law tort? IntroductionA wrong can be defined as a wrong that interferes with a person's legally protected interests, while a crime can be defined as a wrongful act that causes damage to someone's personality, family or property. There are many similarities between the Roman law of torts and the common law of torts, including the similarity between the tort of animal liability and the Actio de Pauperie and the edict of the aediles, the tort of trespass and l the crime of trespass. death comparable to the crime of unjust damage to property or the Lex Aquila. The similarity between the crime of trespass and the crime of theft and robbery, and the similarity between the crime of trespass, in the form of assault and the crime of insult or insult. However there is only one major difference between the Roman law of crimes and the common law of crimes, the Roman law of crimes has a criminal element in its punishment, while the common law of crimes is strictly a civil punishment and compensatory damages. crime can be defined as a wrongful act that causes harm to someone's personality, family or property and for which the victim or his or her heirs are entitled to compensation, similar to the common law definition of tort, which suggests that a tort is a wrong that interferes with a person's legally protected interests. The Roman law of crimes was divided into four main crimes, the unlawful damage to property (damnum injuria datum) or Lex Aquil...... middle of paper ......an Law (4th ed, Oxford University Press 2010 ) pp 317-52.Trischa Mann (ed.), Oxford Australian Law Dictionary (Oxford University Press Australia and New Zealand, 2011).CasesBehrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd [1957] 2 QB, [1957] 1 All ER583.Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275.Hall v Fonecca [1983] WAR 309.Penfolds wine v Elliot [1946] 74 CLR 204.Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333 [160].LegislationLaw Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 .OtherGaius, Provincial Edict Book 7 (D.9.2.2pr).Paul, Sabinus Book 10 (D.9.2.31).Ulpiano, Edict Book 18 (D.9.2. 27.5).Paul, Edict Book 39 (D.47.2 .1.3).Paul, Sabinus Book 40 (D.47.2.21.8).Ulpian, Edict Curules Book 2 (D.21.1.40-2).Ulpian, Edict Book 18.Ulpian, Edict Book 56 (D.47.10. 1.1 -2).Ulpian, Edict Book 56 (D.47.8.2.23).Ulpian, Edict Book 57 (D.47.10.11.1).Ulpiano, Sabino Book 41 (D.47.2.43.5).