Community Magazine August 2012

According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , if an animal attacks a person, or damages personal property, the animal’s owner bears liability and must compensate the victim for the damage. Since this ruling varies with the specifications of the occurrence, a competent halachic authority must be contacted before determining the offender’s degree of liability. By Torah law, this liability is imposed specifically on the owner, and not on other parties which came into contact with the animal. Therefore, unless one lifted a stray animal with the intent of acquisition, he is not liable for its subsequent damage, even though he had temporarily carried it. Similarly, one who incites a dog or snake to attack another human being is responsible by Divine law to compensate for the damage caused. Since he provoked the attack, he is considered an accomplice to the offense, and must bear the responsibility. While this ruling applies even if the accomplice is not the dog’s owner, it is nevertheless limited to instances in which the offender incited the animal. Merely releasing an ownerless dog or snake onto a property, by contrast, does not constitute grounds for liability. The only exception to this rule is the case of one who sets an animal free by breaking the wall of its cage. Once the animal was caged and secured by its owner, the act of initiating its release and changing the original status of captivity is considered unlawful. However, in instances in which an animal is hunted from its natural habitat, and then released by the hunter back into the wild, the hunter is not responsible for any subsequent damage. The animal, while in its natural habitat, was unrestrained from doing damage, and therefore the hunter’s actions of restoring the animal’s freedom are viewed as inconsequential. The hunter did not initiate its freedom; to the contrary, he contained the animal and thus prevented it from causing damage for the short while. As he did not enable any additional opportunities for the animal to do damage beyond the initial, preexisting threat, the hunter is exempt from responsibility for damage done by the animal subsequent to its release back into the environment. The Torah judicial system recognizes the need to penalize licensed professionals who act in a reckless manner. Among the most severe penalties is dismissing a professional from his position. Depending on the degree of irresponsibility, a Bet Din will take measures to help prevent recurring wrongdoing on the part of a professional. SNAKEBITE Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din The Bet Din absolved Gaby, the snake catcher, from liability for the damages caused to Victor’s wife. As explained in Torah law, Gaby was not the owner of the snake and is not responsible for its activities. Although Gaby had lifted the snake and placed it in his sack, he had never intended to acquire it as his personal property. The act of releasing the snake is legally inconsequential, since prior to Gaby’s involvement, the snake had already been unrestrained and unhindered from doing damage. In fact, Gaby can be viewed as having partially assisted in restraining the snake, since he contained it for a short period while it was in his sack. Frustrated for not being paid for his services, Gaby was unwilling to transport the snake to another destination, and chose the quickest way to end his involvement in thise matter. Had he released a snake owned by another person, or incited a snake to attack, he surely would have been liable for damages. But since he had temporarily captured an ownerless snake, and merely let it out of its trap without inciting it to cause harm, he bears no responsibility for the snake’s subsequent mischief. Although Victor felt that Gaby’s fee was exorbitant, after investigation, it became evident that his price actually conformed to the standard market rate for that particular job. Nevertheless, the Bet Din admonished Gaby for releasing the snake, since he should have completed the job and then collected his wages in Bet Din. Although he was exempt from payment, the Bet Din filed a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection regarding Gaby’s rash behavior. The department issued a warning to Gaby that he must demonstrate safety and caution in the future or risk having his license revoked. The Case Gaby, a professional snake catcher, was hired by Victor, a resident of Ramot, Jerusalem, to locate and trap a snake that was roaming in the vicinity of his backyard. After hours of searching, Gaby finally trapped the snake and contained it in a sack. After Victor and his family thanked Gaby for a job well done, Gaby presented Victor with a $1500 bill for his professional services. Victor refused to pay the bill, since he estimated the value of the job on the market at $500. After it became evident to Gaby that he was not going to be paid the sum he requested, he released the snake back into the yard from which he had captured it. Victor was appalled by Gaby’s rash behavior, and after a heated argument Gaby left the premises. The following evening, while preparing a barbeque for her family in the backyard, Sandy, Victor’s wife, was bitten by the snake. She was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and treated for the severe wound. Victor summonsed Gaby to Bet Din, claiming that he is liable to pay for all medical expenses incurred, and for the pain and anguish suffered by his wife. Gaby rejected the claim and felt he was not responsible for any damage. How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Gaby or Victor? Verdict: THE ANTIDOTE Torah Law Sources: Baba Kama 13b, Shulhan Aruch – Hoshen Mishpat 389:1, 395:1, 396:3, and 306:8. 62 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE