|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 111
WHAT'S THE LAW ™
◆
Encouraging intelligent and entertaining debate at your Shabbat table.
Fellow Weekly raises issues of business law and ethics through lively emails by featuring your real-life scenarios answered by our leading authorities and professionals.
|
|
This week's issue is dedicated in memory of
The Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva
Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel zt"l
CLICK HERE FOR THIS ISSUE'S PDF
Spearheaded by Rabbi Myer J. Schwab, Dean of Bais Yaakov of Denver
THE RAV SHIMON SCHWAB ZT"L
CHOSHEN MISHPAT CHINUCH INITIATIVE FUND
CLICK here TO JOIN OUR SACRED MISSION
Click here and help Project Fellow further ethics education across the globe. |
|
Case # 213 The Baffled Babysitter XIII: A Trip to NYC Part I
Smacked in the face by Eli's hockey stick, Aaron lost his two front teeth as they both contested for the puck during a Sunday afternoon game. Aside from a painful and embarrassing scene, Aaron needed expensive medical care dental work and physical therapy. Is Eli liable? If yes, for what?
What is the law?
Please email us with your comments and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org
Read next week's issue for the answer!
|
|
|
Case # 213: The Baffled Babysitter XIII!
1. "Ding Dong. Ding Dong. Watch the closing doors!" Angling her back just so, preventing the subway doors from closing on her charges; two by two, Naomi's left hand led her four energetic nephews aboard the 1 Train towards Battery Park as her right fist clutched a carbonated apple drink can she opened moments ago for the kids while waiting for a challenging half hour on the stale-aired platform. A silent expression of gratitude - to her gymnastic teacher crossed her mind; till the feeling of cold brass swiftly pressed hard against her forearm. A tuba held by a six foot teenager forcefully maneuvered its way through the crowd. Naomi's hand lost its equilibrium and the can sent an apple juice shower down an attorney's suit pants.
2., 3. Before the three-way brawl involving the attorney, Naomi and the tuba bearer ensued, Naomi made a beeline to the lone available seat; promptly sat down, piled the kids onto her lap only to have sensed the crush of a hot paper cup and felt her dry clean-only skirt swimming in a gush of mocha and whipped cream. "Madam can't you watch where you're sitting?" yelled the irate tourist sitting next to her. "You owe me a cup of coffee." Then, the expected five-way symphony of incensed passengers instantly erupted in the car - only to be drowned out by an ear piercing chorus of four banjos and five bongo drums.
Though still dripping from mocha, Naomi gasped a sigh of relief when the doors flung opened and the victims of her juice and espresso debacles dashed out to catch their departing transfer across the platform.
4., 5. Manipulating her foursome down Broadway towards the park, Naomi eyed a symmetrical tower of mouthwatering mangos prominently perched atop Peter's Produce Parlor checkout counter along the exterior of the shop. On brief lunch break, family friend Natan Teeberg whisked by en route for bagels, pulled a mango down for Naomi and kept on scurrying. Crash! Down rolled the pile of mangos behind the counter. A mango's bull's-eye fall onto the cashier's open beer can on the floor, splattered the fruit and sent a carbonated geyser billowing upwards; painting the white ceiling and nearby bananas with a sticky layer of green beer gloss. Instantly, Peter's shelf stackers chased after Natan and subdued him two blocks yonder. Fruitlessly frisking him for compensation cash, they sped off with Natan's Metrocard for recourse.
1. Who is responsible to pay for the attorney's cleaning bill - Naomi or the tuba bearer?
2. Is Naomi required to pay the tourist for her coffee?
3. Is the tourist required to pay Naomi for the cleaning bill?
4. Is Natan required to pay Peter for the damaged Mango? Cleaning the beer off the ceiling and bananas?
5. May Peter's boys seize a Metrocard from Natan to cover possible expenses?
What's the Law?
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
Beit Din cannot force Naomi to pay for the attorney's cleaning bill, the tourist for Naomi's cleaning bill nor Natan to pay for cleaning the beer off the ceiling and mangos. Peter's boys may not seize the card. See detailed explanation regarding their moral obligations, the tuba bearer's liability, and Natan's liability for the damaged mangos.
|
|
Detailed Explanation
The Baffled Babysitter XIII invokes the following seven laws.
1. It is forbidden to cause an individual direct or indirect damages [Choshen Mishpat 378].
2. One may not place an obstacle in public property.
3. Nevertheless, while he/she who plants an obstacle is liable for physical damages incurred by people and animals; yet, in a special dispensation, the Torah does not vest Beit Din the authority to collect payment for damages incurred by another's inanimate property resulting from the obstacle [Choshen Mishpat 410: 21].
4. Beit Din has the authority to collect for intentional damages directly resulting from the aggressor's actions.
5. In addition, Beit Din has the authority to collect for unintentional damages directly resulting from the aggressor's actions when the aggressor could reasonably have assumed that such damage could have resulted.
For example, a homeowner is absolved from paying for unintentionally harming an individual or his/her belongings who, unbeknownst to the homeowner, entered the home. Similarly, in public property, the aggressor is absolved from paying for unintentionally harming an individual or his/her belongings that he/she could not have expected to possibly encounter [Choshen Mishpat 378].
6. Beit Din generally lacks authority to collect for indirect damages resulting from the aggressor's actions. Nevertheless, the aggressor has a moral obligation to pay for intentional indirect damages, while is absolved from paying for unintentional indirect damages [Choshen Mishpat 386, Imrei Yosher].
7. Grabbing an object as payment for a debt may be done only following an assessment and through an injunction of Beit Din [Choshen Mishpat 97: 6].
Application
1. Naomi did not directly cause the attorney damage. Beit Din cannot demand payment from her. Arguably; there are situations where holding an open soda can in the subway is irresponsible, while at times it is not. If Naomi was irresponsible, she would have a moral obligation towards the attorney.
Even if it is normal for crowds to push themselves in to a subway car as the doors begin to close, the Tuba bearer is liable to pay if he saw the can and he directly knocked her hand over, whereby spilling the apple juice. If he did not see her, he would be liable if he had reason to suspect that someone in the crowd would be holding an open can of drink.
If however, he knocked into her and the juice indirectly spilled because she lost her equilibrium, Beit Din would not require the tuba bearer to pay for the indirect damage. The tuba bearer would nevertheless have a moral obligation to pay if he was reckless (i.e. he could have assumed that a fellow passenger was holding an open drink).
2. Assuming that it highly unlikely to find cups of coffee on an empty subway seat, Naomi need not watch where she sits and is not held liable for inadvertently damaging the coffee.
3.The tourist faultily placed an obstacle in public property which damaged Naomi's skirt, an inanimate object. While there is discussion as to the tourist's a moral obligation to pay the cleaning bill, Beit Din is generally not vested with the authority to demand payment.
4. Natan must pay for the mangos if he irresponsibly pushed down a responsibly piled tower, even if he did so inadvertently. However, if they were piled precariously, in a manner that Natan could not have expected his pulling down a mango to send the tower tumbling down; Natan would be absolved.
Natan Teeberg had no reason to expect that an open can of beer would be positioned on the floor behind the checkout counter. The damages due to the billowing geyser at best were an unintentional indirect damage for which there is not even a moral obligation to recompense.
5. Without a damage assessment and permission from Beit Din, Peter's boys may not seize the Metrocard to possibly cover the cost of the damaged frui
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
Although we aim to present the correct ruling, varying details are always important and decisively influence every individual case. Our readers are thus encouraged to present their personal cases to a competent authority and not solely rely on the information provided.
Together...for a better world
You can help build a better world. Just invite your friends and family to subscribe to
Fellow Weekly.
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line
CLICK HERE to DONATE to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!
|
|
A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical Law
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 |
|
