If a potter brought his pots into a homeowner's courtyard without permission, and the homeowner's animal broke the pots, the homeowner is exempt from liability. If the homeowner's animal was damaged through the pots, the owner of the pots is liable to pay for the damage. But if he brought his pots with the homeowner's permission and they were broken, the owner of the courtyard is liable.
The same laws are valid if one brought his produce into a courtyard and an animal ate or harmed it.
Rebbi says: "The homeowner is not liable unless he explicitly accepts the obligation to guard it."
Art: Pottery Shop at Tunis by Willard Leroy Metcalf
2 comments:
This seems straightforward. Suppose though, that the home owner had something particularly dangerous in their courtyard. Maybe a warned Ox. The potter goes in without permission to store his pots. Or even a thief goes in to steal something, and is killed by the Ox. In other words, by virtue of the fact that the home owner accepted no explicit obligation, is he/she exempt from ANY liability? Would appropriate signage make a difference? (e.g. "Danger: Warned Ox"
Matt, this is indeed the law. Here is how it is formulated in the Shulchan Aruch:
If someone brought his ox into a courtyard of his fellow without permission, and the ox of the courtyard owner gored the incomer's ox, the courtyard owner is not liable, even if he himself did the damage, because he can say to the trespasser, “Since you came in without my knowledge, I did not know about your presence until I hurt you my mistake.”
However, if the owner of the courtyard damages the incomer knowingly, he is liable to pay full damages, since even though he has the right to evict the person, he has no right to harm him.
You see that in the Talmud the liability for damages is less than in the American law: causative damages are often not payable. For example, if one gives poison to his fellow's animal and the animal dies, he is liable only in Heavenly judgment, but not in court, for he can says, “The animal should not have eaten this.” In contrast, in the American law the person is liable not only for direct causation like poisoning, but also for omission, such as forgetting to put vitamins into chicken feed, which may cause them to get sick. Furthermore, in the American law he is liable even for consequential damages, such as if the chicken sickness caused the need to burn the chicken premises.
Post a Comment