|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 116
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.
|
|
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
We can succeed by working TOGETHER
Please click here for dedication and partnership opportunities.
Thank you |
|
Case # 221 Teenage Terror [Note to parents: Please read this scenario before choosing whether to discuss this case with your family. You may consider using it as a springboard for discussions pertaining to self control, peer pressure, adolescence challenges etc. or else you may deem it inappropriate for discussion with your family.]
Dave and Barry were flaunting their newly discovered adolescent prowess. " Dave. I've mastered the art of holding my alcohol. I'm leaving the room for a minute. Spike whatever you want on the laden table. Barry reached for the Arik, an Israeli/ Moroccan 95% alcoholic beverage and poured a significant quantity in Barry's chicken soup.
Barry returned to the room; but before he could sit down to continue eating, Dave stood up tall and called out, "Barry! Come on, try me, give me your hardest shot!" Barry clutched his fist, and approached Dave. Dave tightened is abdomen muscles. Barry gave a powerful blow, knocked Dave to the floor, and continued eating. The next thing Barry remembered was lying next to Dave in the Emergency Room. Dave sustained a ruptured abdomen muscle, while Barry was diagnosed with alcohol poisoning.
Is Barry liable to pay for Dave's medical expenses?
Is Dave liable to pay for Barry's medical expenses?
|
|
|
Case # 220 Whopping Winter Wet War
Concluding a taxing wintery day of jury duty, envisioning the thrilling struggle for an inch on the Manhattan Subway, the stressed out crowd carefully pushed their ways down the black-iced stately stairway before the New York City Supreme Court building on 60 Centre Street.
His checkered scarf tightly wrapped around his face; Arnold's brown Florsheim's™ Cromwell dress shoes suddenly lost traction, and sent him for a hard nose dive, but not before the tip of his black totes® umbrella rib pierced an ugly snag in the flapping coat tails of Ben's blue Nautica; in no time - pulling Ben down hard to a sitting position on the cold wet concrete.
The debacle compounded almost simultaneously, as Marc, trekking closely behind, stumbled hard over sprawled out Arnold, broke his ankle and inadvertently crushed his rented MacBook Air across Arnold's battered bleeding face.
1. Must Arnold pay for the damage his umbrella rib tip caused to Ben's Blue Nautica?
2. Who pays for the MacBook; Arnold or Marc?
3. If the MacBook caused Arnold to need additional stitches; is Marc liable?
4. Who pays for Marc's medical 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.
Arnold is absolved from paying for Ben's coat, Marc's MacBook or Marc's medical expenses.
Marc is absolved from paying for Arnold's additional stitches.
|
|
Detailed Explanation
Whopping Winter Wet War invokes the following six laws.
1. A person is liable for both intentional and unintentional damages that he or she exacts on a third party's article whether due to negligence (peshia) or accidental mishap (Ones).
However, one is absolved from paying for unintentional-completely uncontrollable damages (Ones gamur) he or she causes [Choshen Mishpat 378:1, Sha"ch 2].
2. "A carpenter gripping a beam walked behind a potter holding a barrel. The beam punctured the barrel. The carpenter is liable for the damages to the barrel.
Exceptions: The carpenter is absolved, if the circumstances having caused the puncture were deemed as 'completely unexpected/uncontrollable' or the potter made an unlawful short-stop and did not give ample warning" [Choshen Mishpat 379: 3].
3. One may not place an obstacle in public property. While one who does so is liable for physical damages duly incurred by people and animals; the Torah does not grant Beit Din the authority to collect payment for damages incurred by another's inanimate property resulting from the obstacle [Choshen Mishpat 410: 21, see Aruch Hashulchan 410: 26 for explanation].
4. A and B were on foot; one behind another. A inadvertently slipped (without negligence on his/her part) and was incapable of standing up [Shulchan Aruch] or warning [Rama] B, before B accidentally tripped over A. A is absolved from damages sustained by B.
5. If A was capable of standing up [Shulchan Aruch] or warning B [Rama], but failed to do so before B tripped over A, A is liable for the damages B sustains from A's body. (Similarly, if C trips over B, B is liable for the damages C sustains from B's body, if B was capable of standing up [Shulchan Aruch] or warning C [Rama], but failed to do so.) [Choshen Mishpat 413: 1, 2].
6. When B stumbles over A; do we view B as having stumbled over an obstacle (whereby Beit Din may only collect for damages sustained to people or animals) or having been damaged directly by a human being (whereby Beit Din may even collect for damages sustained by inanimate objects)? As valid arguments are made to both sides, we would respect the status quo with regards to forcing A to pay for damages sustained by A's inanimate property [Choshen Mishpat 413: 1].
Application
1. Arnold "carefully pushed his way down the stairs." His subsequent fall and piercing of Ben's coat was completely uncontrollable. He is thus absolved from paying for the ripping Ben's blue Nautica.
2. "The debacle compounded almost simultaneously" suggests that Arnold had no time to get up or warn Marc. Again, the debacle was completely uncontrollable and as such Arnold is absolved.
Even if Arnold had the capability to stand up or warn Marc, as there is a strong argument to view Arnold as a "stumbling block" Beit Din cannot exact payment for the damage to the "inanimate MacBook."
3. Marc is absolved from paying for Arnold's additional stitches.
4. If Arnold had time to get up, he would have to pay for Marc's medical expenses. As he did not have time, he absolved.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
