Hot answers tagged torts-damages
13
R' Moshe Feinstein ruled that people are culpable for acts committed under hypnosis if there is reason to believe that the hypnotist wouldn't be beyond suggesting to the person to behave improperly (Igros Moshe, YD 3:44). This is comparable to someone that goes to sleep near fragile items and breaks them in his sleep (Tos. Bava Kamma 4a, s.v. Keivan).
To ...
8
This is called מציל עצמו בממון חבירו, saving yourself at the expense of someone else's property. Fred is indeed liable to pay Ernie for any damages, even if he was trying to save his own life (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 380:3), and certainly if it was just to save his own property from theft or confiscation (ibid. 292:8 and and 388:2).
8
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 421:5 says (in my own translation):
Two who wrestled together, and one knocked the other to the ground so that he fell and got blinded, he's not liable.
The S'ma explains:
The reason for this is: Since they both wrestled willingly, each intending to knock down his fellow, and each knowing that it's impossible to be ...
7
The question is addressed in the poskim, I believe it gets a footnote in Shulchan Aruch at the end of the Laws of Purim. I recall hearing a tape about this a few years ago.
In short, drunkenness alone is not a defense (see below); what may be a defense is that if the damages were caused "as part of normally-acceptable merrymaking." Tosfos (France, 1200s) ...
7
Halachah distinguishes between two kinds of indirect damages: g'rama, for which one is exempt from court-imposed penalties or repayments (although he is still liable to Heavenly judgment until he makes good the loss); and garmi, for which a court of law can hold him liable. (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 386)
What distinguishes g'rama from garmi is ...
6
From Shut Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, Part 2, Siman 10:
... My opinion is that the Katan (Minor?) that caused damage will have to pay when he grows up. Then he says that not everybody agrees to this (and think that he doesn't have to pay even when he grows up) but he couldn't find their opinion in Shulchan Aruch. So the discussion is about the Katan's payment ...
5
A relevant source (regarding case #2) is Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 383:2 (from Bava Kamma 28a). The case is that A's ox has climbed on top of B's ox and is going to kill it. B may pull his ox out, even if this will cause A's ox to fall to its death. On the other hand, he may push off A's ox only if he has no other way to save his own; if he could have ...
5
Aruch Hashulchan (CM 410:26) speculates the reason why the ditch-digger is not responsible for kelim as follows:
Kelim, in general, do not move unless a person or an animal is moving them. We expect a person to be paying enough attention where he is walking not to fall into the ditch, especially when he is carrying stuff (which is why the digger is also not ...
4
Just to back Alex up:
Yes it's allowed. The simple understanding is that the obligation to save a life overrides virtually all commandments, which would include "don't steal" or "don't damage your neighbor's property." There is some discussion about this, but that appears to be our conclusion. (Yet the Gemara seems to have debated it; either we conclude ...
4
The question's "I am paid for repairs" may be misleading: I seem to recall that you're paid for the difference between the market value of the car before it was damaged and its value damaged: that the payment has nothing to do with repairs. (This differs from assault on a person, where one pays for the difference in value (as above, nezek), repairs (ripuy), ...
3
Aside from the fact that most prize fights are on Friday or Saturday night (often before Shabbos is out), I'm not sure there is a problem. Chabad apparently doesn't think so as they have heavily promoted one of their own, welterweight fighter Dmitriy Salita (35-1-1), since he became frum and turned pro 12 years ago. (He's fighting former champion Hector ...
3
Mishneh torah Hilkhot Nizqei Mamon 13:18[19]( and Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 416) says( in Eliyahu Touger's translation):
When a wall or a tree falls into the public domain and causes damage, the owner is not required to compensate [for the damages]. [This applies] even when he declared [the tree or the wall] ownerless. [The rationale is that these ...
3
This passage speaks of a case where men fighting negligently [due to their cations this is not considered an accident] caused a woman to have a miscarriage.
Despite the death of the baby, the punishment is a fine, rather than a punishment for killing.
They would be liable for additional damages if the woman was hurt. If the baby was born and lived but was ...
3
I seem to recall that you're paid for the difference between the market value of the car before it was damaged and its value damaged: that the payment has nothing to do with repairs. (This differs from assault on a person, where one pays for the difference in value (as above, nezek), repairs (ripuy), lost wages (sheves), and pain and suffering (boshes and ...
2
A person who damages is obligated for five things: Tzaar (distress), ripui (healing), sheves (idleness), boshes (embarassment), and nezek (damage) (CM 420:3). However, we nowadays only obligate someone to sheves, ripui, and nezek (1:2), and some say only nezek (Rama there).
There is no question that annoying someone doesn't count for nezek or ripui. ...
2
I don't believe there is proof from this story that one who damages someone to prevent them from doing an aveira is not obligated to pay for damages.
R' Ada bar Ahava was likely a dayan who was qualified (according to the rules set forth in Sanhedrin 5a) to judge cases on his own. The courts have many powers that individuals do not, such as using certain ...
2
In theory maybe you are right. The concept of paying the full value of someone's life certainly exists - as is the case by kofer (when one's mu'ad animal kills a person). So your kid's point is not merely rhetorical. In practice of course we have to judge based on exactly how much the person was actually shamed, but I don't see why it can't be possible that ...
1
New answer:
This is clearly a case of a Shomer-Chinam; asking somebody to
safeguard your item without being paid for it.
The Halacha is that a Shomer-Chinam is not responsible for any damages
unless the damage was caused by his negligence.
So if the camera dropped because he balanced it on his head, for
example, then he would be expected ...
1
I am not sure of the answer but i remember hearing an answer as an example of daas baalei batim keneged daas toirah: A normal baalabus would think that if a child damaged you are chayav but if an animal damaged you aren't because you have more control over the child as in chinuch, but in reality daas toirah is the other way around. It would seem from this ...
1
The gemara in Sanhedrin 69 says that if a person tunnels underneath your house to steal from you, you may kill him. The Rishonim explain that this is because the thief knows that no one lets his money be stolen without a fight, and therefore comes ready to kill the victim if will stop him from stealing. Therefore it is essentially a case where a person comes ...
1
This exact question was posed by Rav Nachum Eliezer Rabinowitz (of the Yeshiva in Ma`aleh Adumim) in his article "Mav`eh" (Hebrew).
It doesn't seem like there's a real practical difference, but he has some interesting suggestions.
From Y'shivat Ma`alot, there's an article which also brings proof from the Zohar.
1
After the first person scratches it, he becomes obligated to pay for the damage. The nizak (damagee) wouldn't profit though, since the second person would only need to pay to replace the scratched door, not a whole new door. If the only way to replace it is to put on a new door, I assume the second person would be compensated for the improvement.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
