Legal Definitions - diffacere

diffacere

(Historical Term) A historical legal term meaning to deface or to mutilate.

This term was used in older legal contexts to describe the act of intentionally damaging or disfiguring property or objects, often with a destructive intent.

• Example 1: A medieval decree might have used "diffacere" to describe the crime of a vandal who deliberately scratched and carved their initials into the stone facade of a public building, thereby disfiguring its appearance.

  Explanation: This illustrates "diffacere" as the act of defacing property, causing visible damage that alters its original state.

• Example 2: In a historical legal text, "diffacere" could refer to an individual who intentionally tore pages from a valuable manuscript or broke off limbs from a statue, rendering it incomplete or damaged beyond its original form.

  Explanation: This demonstrates the meaning of "mutilate," where an object is severely damaged or dismembered, losing its integrity.

• Example 3: A historical law might have prescribed penalties for anyone found to "diffacere" official seals or documents, meaning to intentionally damage or alter them to render them invalid or unreadable.

  Explanation: Here, "diffacere" encompasses both defacing (making unreadable) and mutilating (damaging the physical document) to destroy its legal purpose.

different-department rule

A legal doctrine, largely historical and now rejected in many jurisdictions, that created an exception to the fellow-servant doctrine.

Under the different-department rule, employees working for the same employer were not considered "fellow servants" if they performed different types of work or belonged to distinct departments within the organization. This distinction was significant because if they were not "fellow servants," an employer could potentially be held liable for injuries caused by one employee's negligence to another. In contrast, the traditional fellow-servant doctrine typically shielded employers from such liability when one employee injured another, assuming both were "fellow servants."

• Example 1: Imagine a large manufacturing plant in the early 20th century. An office administrator, working in the administrative department, negligently leaves a heavy box in a walkway. A factory floor worker, from the production department, trips over it and is injured. Under the different-department rule, the factory worker and the office administrator would not be considered "fellow servants" due to their distinct roles and departments, potentially allowing the injured worker to sue the employer for damages.

  Explanation: This scenario highlights how the rule distinguished between employees in different departments performing different work, preventing the employer from using the fellow-servant defense.

• Example 2: In a large retail chain, a delivery driver is injured when the brakes on their truck fail due to faulty maintenance performed by an in-house mechanic who works in the vehicle maintenance department. If the different-department rule were applied, the driver and the mechanic would not be considered fellow servants because their job functions and departments are separate. This could make the employer liable for the driver's injuries, rather than the driver being barred from recovery under the traditional fellow-servant doctrine.

  Explanation: This example illustrates how the rule applied when employees had distinct job functions and were likely in different operational departments, impacting employer liability.

• Example 3: Consider a hospital where a nurse, working in patient care, is injured due to a slippery floor in the cafeteria, caused by the negligence of a cafeteria worker. Under the different-department rule, the nurse and the cafeteria worker would not be deemed fellow servants because their duties and departments (medical vs. food service) are entirely separate. This distinction would allow the nurse to pursue a claim against the hospital for the cafeteria worker's negligence, bypassing the employer's usual defense under the fellow-servant doctrine.

  Explanation: This demonstrates the rule's application across vastly different job roles and departments within a single organization, creating an avenue for employer liability.