Detailed Explanation
Blue Label: Marvin & The Mariner Moose Tip Off II implicates numerous laws. We will focus on the following few.
1. A person is liable for both intentional and unintentional direct damages, which he or she affects [Choshen Mishpat 386].
2. We have explained previously, that by assuming safeguarding responsibilities a trustee becomes liable for various degrees of indirect damages to the trust.
a) An unpaid trustee is liable for losses due to negligence [Choshen Mishpat 291:1].
b) A borrower may use the lender's article at no cost: hence assumes the highest degree of accountability and is liable even for accidental occurrences [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]
3. A guest using the host's houseware and utensils becomes a borrower. As a borrower, the guest need not perform an act of acquisition (as would an unpaid or paid trustee) but assumes due responsibilities and liabilities simply by using the object [Nesivos; Choshen Mishpat 340: 8] (See below for exemption clause when being waited on by the host).
Exemptions
4. A) If a borrower is using the article while being serviced by the owner at the time of his/her assuming safeguarding responsibilities, the Torah exempts the trustee from bearing the greater level of trustee liabilities. In Hebrew, this exemption is called ba'alav imo.
Examples
a) Ari and Benny were playing basketball. Ari loses Benny's ball during the game.
b) While a guest being waited on by the host is liable for direct damages he/she affects on the houseware being used, the guest is absolved from indirect damages normally assumed by borrowers.
5. Valid support exists to include unintentional direct damage under the ba'alav imo exemption clause [Mishne Lemelech Hilchos Ishus 21: 9, Beis Meir].
6. In light of the extreme festive mood prevailing during Purim, the accepted custom is not to hold one another liable for unintentional minor damages affected as a result of the exuberance of the day. The custom however, does not include intentional damages or unintentional significant damages [Orach Chaim 695: 2, Mishna Berurah 13]
7. A depositor and a trustee may agree at the onset to absolve the trustee from some or all levels of liability. Knowingly depositing one's article under the guard of one who will undoubtedly provide a compromised degree of security is an example of an "unspoken agreement" of such sort [Pischei Choshen Hilchos Pikadon Veshe'elah 2:6:18].
Application
Camera
Daniel became a trustee over the digital camera and should be liable for indirect damages due to negligence.
(In truth, he may be considered a paid trustee, as he is receiving a meal from Marvin, and as such should be liable for theft or loss, even not due to negligence.)
In addition, Daniel dropped the camera. Dropping the camera is a direct damage. Irrespective of whether he was a trustee over the camera, he theoretically should be liable to pay. As a camera could be considered a significant damage, the festive Purim mood should offer him no customary exemption.
However, Marvin was servicing Daniel at the time by having his family provide him with a meal and wait on him. As such, Daniel would be absolved from paying for the camera. Although, one could rightfully argue that dropping a camera is a direct damage which is indeed not governed by the ba'alav imo exemption. This argument would be true if the damage was intentional.
As Daniel inadvertently dropped it, there is valid support to argue that he be subject to the ba'alav imo exemption. Additionally, by handing over the camera to an already tipsy Daniel, Marvin assumed a calculated risk that the camera may take an inadvertant close up shot of the tomato soup. Daniel would only be liable if he intentionally threw the camera into the soup.
Blue Label
Leon dropped an expensive bottle of whiskey which is not covered by the Purim exemption clause. As an unintentional direct damage he should be held liable to compensate Marvin for the loss. However, as the damage was unintentional by nature, it can be governed by the ba'alav imo exemption. As Leon was being served by Marvin's family while he borrowed the bottle he is exempt from paying for both unintentional direct damage as well as indirect damages. Leon would only be liable if he intentionally threw the bottle down.
Wicker Chair
Daniel borrowed the chair while being serviced by Marvin. Additionally, there was a calculated risk involved, as it is common for Purim feast participant to dance atop of chairs. If Daniel intentionally added pressure to the chair to break it, he must pay, otherwise, he is absolved.
Homeowners! Beware!
