Lesson # 324 (Assaults, part 3) • Unintended Assaults In all of the situations described in the previous lessons, it is assumed that Reuven intended to do the act. Sometimes he may have foreseen the consequences and sometimes the result was more than he intended, but in all instances he intended the blow to strike Shimon. What if Reuven does not intend to strike Shimon and does strike him? What are the results regarding the five categories of payment described in the last lesson? As in all these lessons, Reuven is the one who commits the assault and Shimon is the victim. There is a requirement for intent in the five categories of payments. 1. Injury: If Reuven injures Shimon he must compensate him for injury. It is not necessary for Reuven to have intent to strike Shimon to be liable for the category of injury when he injures Shimon. This is because Reuven is always deemed forewarned regarding his actions. In Hebrew this is called, “Adam mu'ad l’olam” (a person is always deemed forewarned.) Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, one of the leading Rabbinic personalities of our times, told me that he heard from the great Torah giant, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik, that halacha paraphrases Descarte’s “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) as to say “I am responsible therefore I exist. ”This is true whether Reuven acts deliberately or inadvertently, whether he is awake, asleep or drunk. Reuven is liable even if the injury results from an accident that has some elements of inadvertence. He is not liable if the accident results from something that can be called “entirely accidental” or from an act of God. He is also not liable if Shimon contributes to his becoming injured, whereby he has assumed the risk of becoming injured. Some examples: a) Reuven is only liable for injuries that he causes while asleep if when he went to sleep Shimon and he lay down at the same time or if Shimon was already sleeping there. Reuven in his sleep turns over and injures Shimon or tears his clothing. Reuven is deemed forewarned even when he is asleep and he is liable to Shimon. b) If first Reuven goes to sleep and thereafter Shimon lies down next to him and then Reuven, in his sleep turns over and injures Shimon or tears his clothing, Reuven is not liable since Shimon has contributed to the injury and/or damage. The same holds true if after Reuven is asleep Shimon places an object, his own or someone else’s, next to Reuven and Reuven in his sleep, turns over and breaks it; Reuven is not liable since Shimon has contributed to the damage. If turning onto the vessels injures Reuven, Shimon is liable to him. c) Reuven goes to sleep on the edge of a roof and is then blown off the roof by a normal type of wind. Reuven falls on Shimon and injures him. Reuven is liable for up to four of the categories of damage, but not for humiliation. He is liable since it is inadvertence bordering on the intentional. He should not have slept there if a normal type of wind could blow him down. He is not liable for humiliation since he did not intend to injure anyone. d) Reuven goes to sleep on the edge of a roof and is blown off the roof by an unusual wind. (He would not have been blown off by a usual wind.) Reuven falls on Shimon and injures him. Reuven is liable only for injury, since the damage is caused inadvertently. He is not liable for the other four categories for the same reason. If the wind was particularly unusual, such as a hurricane wind, then Reuven would not be liable of it blew him off the roof since this is deemed entirely accidental. e) Reuven injures his wife during marital intercourse. Although he injured her inadvertently, he is liable for up to four of the categories of damage, excepting humiliation. f) Shimon says to Reuven, “blind my eye, or cut off my hand with the understanding that you will not be liable,” and Reuven does so; Reuven is liable for up to all five categories of payment. It is presumed that one would not usually consent to carrying out such treatment. g) Reuven has in his possession a coat or jar belonging to Shimon and Shimon says to Reuven, “Tear my coat or break my jar with the understanding that you will not be liable”, and Reuven does so, he is liable. h) Reuven does not have in his possession a coat or jar belonging to Shimon and Shimon says to Reuven, “Tear my coat or break my jar.” If Reuven does so, he is not liable even if Shimon did not say, “you will not be liable.” This is an example of Shimon contributing to the damages. i) Reuven and Levi injure Shimon at the same time. They are both liable and the payments are apportioned by Beth Din. (The law is the same no matter how many people participate in the beating of Shimon.) If Reuven acted with intent to injure and Levi had no such intent, Reuven pays for up to all five categories of damage and Levi pays for up to four categories and is free of paying for humiliation. j) Shimon enters onto Reuven’s property without permission. Reuven, while casting Shimon off his property, injures him. If Reuven could have removed Shimon from his property without injuring him, Reuven is liable. (While Reuven has the right to evict Shimon he does not have the right to injure him, unless it cannot be done in any other way.) If he could not have removed Shimon without injuring him when Shimon resisted, Reuven is not liable. Reuven is also not liable if Shimon works for Reuven such as a house boy and Reuven suspects Shimon of stealing and orders him off the property, even if Shimon has not been paid yet. (This speaks of a case in which Reuven has some proof that Shimon is dishonest.) If Shimon resists leaving and Reuven injures Shimon while evicting him, he is not liable for the injury; Shimon has contributed to his becoming injured. k) Shimon enters onto Reuven’s property without permission and Reuven is not aware that Shimon is there. Reuven does an act that results in Shimon being injured. Reuven is not liable, for this is a true accident. However, if Reuven is injured because Shimon is there, although Reuven is not aware of Shimon’s presence, Shimon is liable to Reuven because Shimon contributed to his injuries. If Reuven knew or became aware of Shimon’s presence and Reuven was injured, such as tripping over Shimon, Shimon is not liable. l) Levi sees Reuven beating Shimon and cannot save Shimon except by hitting Reuven. If Levi does so he is not liable to Reuven. Next, IYH we shall discuss other examples, and discuss the liability in these cases for the other four categories of damages. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapter 421 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
Vayakhel-P'kudei Homepage]
|
