Fellow Weekly - Issue 117
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 # 222 The Child the Caregiver I
As Mr. Friedman continued to get on in life, it began to become evident that long term care was in order. Debbie and Dani Berinstein, his daughter and son-in-law agreed to rise to the challenge take him in to their home. Mr. Friedman needed someone to administer a daily sugar test. Money was tight, whereby paying for nurses round the clock would have cost the Berinsteins to forgo their seasonal vacations.
May Debbie take her father's blood each day or should she hire a nurse and have to forgo her vacations?
Case # 223 The Child the Caregiver II
Every second could mean saving yet another life from beneath the debris of the rocketed building in Ashkelon. Should Dudi take the time to slowly remove the concrete slabs and lift his father out without wounding him or should he quickly pull his father out, whereby gashing his arm along the concrete slabs but have more time to move on to an area where more lives might be entrapped?
|
|
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. Dave 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?
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.
Dave is absolved from paying for Barry's medical expenses.
Barry is required to pay for Dave's medical expenses. |
Detailed Explanation
Teenage Terror invokes the following three laws.
1. It is forbidden to inflict physical pain or damage to oneself or to one's friend [Rambam Hilchos Chovel Umazik 5: 1].
{Parenthetically, inflicting pain or physical damage to one's body is permissible in order to spare oneself from a more severe physical (e.g. resetting a broken limb) or severe emotional pain (e.g. elective plastic surgery).
Endangering one's life though, is forbidden, even to remove physical or emotional pain (e.g. dieting leading to anorexia) [Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat II: 65, Riv'vos Ephraim VIII: 389].}
2. We assume that an average person in a balanced state of mind is unwilling to undergo extreme pain or loss of limbs unless it is the best of two worst options. As such, even when a victim says that he/she gives "permission" to an assailant to harm him/her, we assume he/she was not sincere, and the assailant remains obliged to pay for damages [Maseches Bava Kama 93a].
3. B was aware that A deposited a parcel of his food into B's property. B did not watch his/her animal from eating the food. B's animal ate the food and got sick. B cannot demand payment from A [Choshen Mishpat 393: 2, Sm"a 4].
Application
While Dave spiked Barry's food, Barry knew the risk involved and should not have eaten the food.
Even if Dave told Barry to give him a blow, we assume he never meant to absolve Barry from paying for such an excruciating pain and significant damage.
|
|
|
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 |
|