1

Sadly, I read in a local paper, about this incident:

Someone illegally parked in a disabled spot at a doctors office. A disabled person arrived for his doctor's appointment, and saw that the only disabled parking spot was taken. The disabled person was using crutches, so it was difficult for him to walk. The disabled spot was right in front of the building.

He had to park further away. As he walked from his parking spot to the building, he fell in the garage and broke his leg.

Chances are that had he parked in the disabled spot, he would not have fallen. I.e., the accident occurred because he had to make that extra walk. Is the person who illegally parked liable for the damage and / or medical costs?

  • That sounds like Grama. In that case, there would be no financial penalty, but the obligation will be in Heaven. – Yishai Jun 24 '15 at 19:35
  • 1
    @yishai how is it a gramma the disabled person has the right to use the spot he doesn't own it,it definitely is not mentchlach but a gramma I don't see – sam Jun 25 '15 at 0:13
  • @sam I'm not following the correlation of ownership and gramma in your claim. Can you explain? – DanF Jun 25 '15 at 2:43
  • The fact that a car was there already means it is unavailable and halachachily one cannot damage the illiagl parked car but can have it towed. The main issue of grama is that there is no correlation of between him falling and the spot,he could have fell even if he had the spot near the building, the act of parking in a handicap spot is not a damaging action ,it doesn't cause a person to fall,but it definitely is a problem of ben Adam lechaveiro – sam Jun 25 '15 at 4:10
  • @sam Thanks for the explanation. You may want to develop this as an answer by explaining briefly how gramma works and that this is not within that category. – DanF Jun 25 '15 at 14:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .