ABSTRACT
This whole question of burden of proof extends beyond the law of procedure as such. For it is possible to argue that the introduction of strict liability (liability without fault) in the Roman law of obligations was motivated by a desire to help claimants recover compensation in situations where proof of fault and causation might otherwise be impossible.65 Thus, innkeepers and shipmasters were strictly liable for property lost while in their custody, and those occupying buildings adjacent to a public way were liable without proof of fault for injury caused to passers-by from things falling or thrown from the building.66 Of course, such strict liability actions were also developed to protect certain class interests, such as the interest of people using public roads (cf Chapter 12 §§ 4-5). But, even although liability without fault has now the status of substantive principle and is to be found within the modern codes, the procedural advantages of such principles must never be underestimated. Having to prove fault is a major burden on any claimant wishing to use the legal system to obtain compensation for injury.67 The introduction of liability without fault has the effect, therefore, of putting the burden of disproving liability onto the shoulders of the actor, or controller of a person or thing, who has caused the damage.68 Burden of proof acts as a bridge between procedure and substance.
