Digestorum libri
Ex libro XI
Ad Dig. 16,3,32BOHGE, Bd. 2 (1871), S. 293: Ungiltigkeit des im voraus erklärten Verzichts auf Schadensersatz aus grobem Verschulden. Pactum ne dolus praestetur.ROHGE, Bd. 4 (1872), S. 81: Ungiltigkeit des im voraus erklärten Verzichts auf Schadensersatz aus grobem Verschulden. Pactum ne dolus praestetur.Celsus, Digest, Book XI. While a statement of Nerva that gross negligence is fraudulent, is not accepted by Proculus, it seems to me to be perfectly true. For, even if anyone is not as diligent as human nature requires, still, he will not be free from fraud if he does not display that solicitude with respect to a deposit which is customary with him; for good faith will not be maintained if he shows less diligence with reference to said deposit than he exhibits concerning his own property.
Ad Dig. 22,3,11ROHGE, Bd. 6 (1872), S. 216: Beweislast bei einem Anspruche gegen den Mandatar wegen Verabsäumung der vertragsmäßigen Diligenz. Rechenschaftspflicht des Mandatars.Celsus, Digest, Book XI. A ward is not compelled to prove that the sureties furnished by his guardian were not solvent when they were accepted, for proof of this must be required of those whose duty it was to watch over the ward, and provide security for him.
Celsus, Digest, Book XI. I ask you to carefully note in the case of magistrates who have appointed a guardian whether an action should be granted against them for equal amounts, or whether it shall be optional with the ward to sue any of them that he pleases. The answer was that if the magistrates have acted fraudulently, so that sufficient security was not given to the ward, an action for the entire amount should be granted the latter against whomever he may select; but if this occurred merely through their negligence, and did not result from bad faith, I think that it would be more equitable for each one of them to be sued for his own share, provided that, in this way the property of the ward will be preserved.