Lesson # 319 (part seven,
PIT part 5) We continue with the popular topic of the tort of “pit”. I say popular topic since so much time is spent in yeshivot, both for women and men studying Tractate Baba Kama and so many outstanding Torah lectures on halacha are about this topic. This topic is among the most frequent involving tort relationships among people. Reuven places a jar in a public street and Shimon walks by, stumbles on it, and breaks it. Shimon is free of liability since he is under no obligation to focus his eyes on the street when he is walking. He can presume that there are no objects placed in the street on which he can trip. Assume that in tripping over the jar, Shimon is injured. Reuven is liable for the injury. This holds true even if Reuven has renounced his ownership of the jar prior to Shimon tripping over it; Reuven is still liable. Reuven places his jar in a place where it is permitted to place jars, such as the unfrequented sides of a public street near the entrance to a wine press. Shimon trips over the jar and breaks it. Shimon is liable. If Shimon is injured when tripping over it, Reuven is not liable since Shimon should have looked where he was going in such a place. However, if it is dark or the entire walkway is filled with jars and Shimon breaks one of them by trying to withdraw from where he is, Shimon is not liable. If Shimon is injured by tripping over the jars in such circumstances, Reuven is liable to Shimon. Reuven is walking in the street carrying a jar full of water. Without any negligence on Reuven’s part, he trips, breaks the jar, and the water spills into the street. Shimon slips on the water or on the shards from the jar and is injured. Reuven is not liable for Shimon’s injuries, for Reuven was not acting negligently when slipping in the street. However, Reuven is liable to the judgments of Heaven for not removing the shards. [When one is liable to the judgment of Heaven, he may expiate himself by making an appropriate payment to Shimon.] In this situation Reuven’s renouncing of ownership of the shards and water is effective, because the incident occurred accidentally. However, if Reuven intends to retain ownership of the shards, then he is liable if Shimon is injured by them. If as a result of Shimon slipping on the shards or water, Shimon’s personal property is damaged, Reuven is not liable. This is because Reuven is not liable for damages to personal property that are caused by pit. Assume that Reuven pours water into a public street and Shimon slips on the water and is injured, or Shimon’s ox slips on the water and is killed or injured. Reuven is liable for the injuries to Shimon and for the injuries or death of Shimon’s ox, as he would be in all cases of injury to a person or animal or of death of an animal caused by a pit. This holds true even in the wintertime when people are permitted to have their drains and gutters empty into the public street. If Shimon’s personal property, including the clothes that he is wearing, is damaged when he slips on the water that Reuven poured into the street, Reuven is not liable. There is no liability for damage to Shimon’s personal property by a pit. A few more examples from the Talmud and Rabbinic literature. Reuven and Shimon, both potters carrying pots, are walking along the public street, Shimon behind Reuven. [The same applies to any two people, I have retained the Talmudic example.] Reuven stumbles and falls, And Shimon falls over Reuven. If Reuven could have risen prior to Shimon falling over him but failed to do so, he is liable for the injuries sustained by Shimon. If he could not have risen and Shimon falls over him, Reuven is not liable for the injuries; this in spite of the fact that Reuven should have warned Shimon to be careful. Reuven is so preoccupied with his own problem of how to get up that he does not concentrate on warning Shimon. There is an opinion that if Reuven could have warned Shimon, Reuven is liable. Reuven is not liable for damages done to Shimon’s jars when Shimon stumbles over Reuven, since a person is not liable for damages to personal property caused by his pit. Reuven himself is the pit in this action, since he represents an obstacle lying in the street. Reuven, who is followed by Shimon, who is followed by Levi, are all walking in the street, each carrying a package. Reuven stumbles and falls, then Shimon falls over Reuven and Levi falls over Shimon. Each one could have risen and picked up his fallen package, but failed to do so. Reuven is liable for the injuries to Shimon, but not for damages to Shimon’s package. It is irrelevant whether the injuries to Shimon result from Shimon falling over Reuven as he lay on the ground, or over Reuven’s package. Shimon is liable for injuries to Levi only if Shimon’s body causes the injuries as Shimon lay in the street; but he is not liable for damage to Levi’s package. Shimon is not liable if Levi is injured by the package that Shimon dropped. In that situation, Shimon can plead that it was Reuven’s fault that Shimon’ package fell to the ground. If Reuven warns Shimon and Shimon warns Levi, then neither is liable. All this applies if the person who falls does not abandon ownership of his bundle; if he does, he is not liable if the person who comes after him falls on the bundle he has abandoned. Assume that Reuven falls down and is lying across the road. Shimon stumbles over Reuven’s head. Levi stumbles over Reuven’s legs and Yehuda stumbles over Reuven’s torso. Reuven is liable to all of them for injuries if he could have arisen before they tripped over him. There is an opinion that he is liable only to Shimon if Levi and Yehuda saw Shimon falling over Reuven and still did not avoid tripping over him. Reuven may not place his straw and stubble in the public street so that it should be trodden upon and turned into fertilizer. If he does place it there he is penalized by an ancient Rabbinic decree declaring the straw and stubble to be ownerless so that Shimon can acquire it. There is an opinion that if Shimon acquires it, he must compensate Reuven for the value of the straw and only the increase of the value to the straw belongs to Shimon. (The trodden straw is worth more than straw that has not been trodden.) Although the straw and stubble are declared to be ownerless regarding ownership thereof, if Levi or his animal is hurt by slipping on the straw or stubble, Reuven must compensate Levi for his injuries and for the injuries to the animal. Reuven may place his straw and stubble in the street if he intends to remove them immediately. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapter 413 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat B'shalach Homepage]
|
