Detailed Explanation
Amsterdam or London? implicates the following three laws
A is liable for
direct damages he or she causes to B's property. We deem damage likely to
occur albeit not an immediate result of the action, as direct. Secondary damage or loss not very likely to
occur is deemed indirect.
Is Brian entitled to a recourse to reclaim his money?
While, A is not financially liable for affecting indirect
damages to B's property, nevertheless it is sinful to cause a second
party both direct and indirect financial loss [Bava Basra 22b, Choshen
Mishpat 386 Sha"ch 6] (See
Issue 29, 33).
One is required to
forfeit the prospect of earning money rather than transgressing a sin [Shulchan
Aruch Yoreh Deah 157].
Application:
I How
much is Kobe
responsible to pay?
Objectively,
so long as the store's contents remain protected from possible vandalism, there
is no need to repair the glass during the night. Instead, the true repair cost
of the broken window is 200 Euro, the cost of repair during the daytime. Standing
guard in the interim would generally suffice to thwart off vandals. Thus, Kobe may wait until the
morning and is not liable to pay more than 200 Euro for the broken storefront.
- However,
Kobe may have
to pay 600 Euro for two completely different reasons.
Let us explain.
1) Leaving
the store unattended after breaking the glass creates a risk of vandalism to
the merchandise therein.
In
a crime-ridden neighborhood, leaving the store in such an unprotected state would
create a phenomenon of almost certain damage. Such a phenomenon would generate
liability for subsequent loss or theft of the merchandise as well.
In
a relatively safer neighborhood, where leaving the breached storefront
unattended would not create a situation of almost certain damage, subsequent
loss or theft of the merchandise is deemed an indirect damage.
While
Kobe is not
liable for any subsequent indirect losses or theft of the merchandise, it is
still forbidden for him to cause an indirect loss to Mike's Bikes. Thus, he still
may not leave the breached storefront unprotected.
Therefore,
while objectively Kobe is only liable to pay 200 Euro for the damage of the
glass, even if Mike insist on having it fixed immediately, Kobe would nevertheless
be required to pay 600 Euro to fulfill his responsibility to ensure immediate
protection of the contents from vandalism. Otherwise, it is forbidden for him
to leave the scene without ensuring an alternative responsible means to guard
the store in the interim.
It is
important to note; The Talmud requires one to exert oneself and protect a
fellow's belongings from being washed away by flooding, devoured by animals
etc. However, one is not required to lose money to do so. [Bava Metzia 30b] This is the mitzvah of Hashavat Aveidah -
protecting a fellow from suffering financial loss. [Bava Metzia 31a]
Thus,
any passerby who observes his friend's storefront vulnerable to vandals must
take the necessary precautions to save his friend from possible loss. However,
the passerby need not lose money in doing so.
Kobe on the other hand has a different form of responsibility
towards the merchandise. He is a "damager". A damager is required to incur a
loss to ensure he or she does not damage another's property. Hence, Kobe is required to pay
600 Euro to fulfill his responsibility to ensure immediate protection of the
contents from vandalism. Otherwise, it is forbidden for him to leave the scene without
ensuring an alternative responsible way to guard the store in the interim.
2) Additionally, if Kobe indeed hired Blast Glass, he is required
to pay 600 simply to fulfill his contract with Blast Glass irrespective of his
responsibility towards Mike.
II Amsterdam or London?
Background:
As
one is required to forfeit the prospect of earning money rather than
transgressing a sin, he must risk losing the coveted business deal if there is
no alternative responsible way to guard the merchandise from possible loss in
the interim. Amsterdam
or London? London!
