However, as a man is not in conscience responsible for damage which he caused inadvertently and by accident, the action which caused the damage must be voluntary, with at least some confused foreknowledge of its probable effects, in order that an obligation in conscience may arise to make compensation for the damage caused. Even though in a particular case there was no theological fault of this kind, as it is called by divines, yet sometimes if the amount of diligence was not used which the law requires in the case, the law imposes the obligation of making compensation to the injured party. There is then said to be juridical fault, and after the sentence of a competent authority has imposed the obligation of making compensation, it will be matter of conscience to obey the sentence.
So is this saying that a lack of diligence that is both voluntary and against commutative justice, is a thing that requires restitution or is it saying that voluntary negligence requires restitution even though it is not a commutative injustice or is it saying that even involuntary negligence requires restitution?
And what does it mean by law in this context? Is it talking about natural law or positive law or is it talking about any passed law whatsoever (perhaps even unjust laws defining diligence and founding the obligation to abide by these on something extrinsic)?
Any opinions or definitive judgments are welcome.