Community Magazine September 2012

The Bet Din ruled in favor of Steven, exempting him from payment for the damage he caused to Gayle’s car. By Torah law, when real property is illegally obstructed, it is permitted for the landowner to seek immediate relief to correct the violation without having to wait for a formal judgment. This ruling allows the affected party to create a passageway enabling his car to exit a blocked driveway, providing that no excessive or unnecessary damage is done to the blocking car. Since Steven proceeded with caution while exiting, it was evident that no unnecessary damage was done to Gayle’s car. Steven was also not required to call a tow truck to move the car without causing damage, since it would have been a very time-consuming process and not necessarily less costly than the damage caused to the car. Taking the law into one’s hands is generally ill-advised, as most people are uninformed with regard to the precise rules and regulations involved, but in this particular incident, all the requirements of Torah Law were met, exempting Steven from payment. After Steven obtained a ruling in his favor, he proceeded to press charges and attempt to collect the cost of damage done to his car while he was exiting the driveway. The Bet Din rejected his claim, since by Torah law he was not entitled to compensation. Although he was exempt from paying for the damage he caused, he is nevertheless not entitled to collect compensation for the damage to his car, since it was he who initiated the cause of his own damage. Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 4:1, 412:2’ Baba Kama 27b, 28a, Tosafot 28a d.h. meshaber,; Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 379:4, 319:1; Rashi Baba Kama 27a d.h. davka. According toTorah law, in certain limited instances a person may take forceful action without having to first appear in a Bet Din. Since various rules and regulations apply before warranting such action, it is generally not advisable for one to take the law into his own hands without first consulting a competent halachic authority. It should also be noted that the following guidelines are applicable when the parties seek a verdict based on Torah law; if however, members of other faiths are involved, and these individuals are unlikely to submit to the authority of a Bet Din, the matter is more complicated and these guidelines may not apply. According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , when private or even public property is illegally obstructed, it is permitted for an affected party to take action and correct the violation. In the classic case in which a party completely filled a public walkway with barrels of wine, it is acceptable for pedestrians to pass through the barrels without taking extra precaution not to break them. Since it is forbidden to deprive the public of their right of way, a pedestrian is exempt from damages resulting from the inadvertent breaking of the minimal number of barrels necessary to pass. Although the possibility of carefully stacking the barrels alongside the road and avoiding their damage does exist, one is not required to exert considerable effort to clear the blocked walkway without causing any damage at all. The Shulhan Aruch issues a similar ruling concerning the case of a private courtyard that is blocked, allowing the courtyard’s owner to take the law into his own hands without formal authorization from a Bet Din. Hence, in instances in which a car is blocking an active driveway, the driveway owner may create a passageway for his car, enabling him to enter and exit freely. This ruling includes using a reasonable amount of force, and even causing damage to the blocking car, providing that no excessive or punitive action is taken. By no means may the driveway owner utilize unnecessary force simply because he is frustrated. If undue action is taken while freeing a passageway, full liability is incurred for the unnecessary damage. It is important to note that while the owner of the driveway is exempt from payment for the damage caused to the blocking car, he cannot collect compensation for the damage done to his own car, since it was he who intentionally carried out the actions which caused the damage. do NoT BlocK driVeWay rabbi Max sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel froM THe files of THe Bet din The Case Gayle was rushing to a berit milah in the local neighborhood. But with alternate side parking in effect that day, she simply could not find a parking spot for her car. In order not to miss the milah , she decided to park her car on the street, blocking a significant part of Steven’s driveway. Steven, already late for work, stepped out of his house to find his car blocked by another vehicle. He frantically began blowing his horn to signal for the owner to come out and move the blocking car. Steven ruled out the option of having the car towed, as it would be a very time-consuming process. After 40 minutes of waiting, Steven decided to pull his car out of the driveway, estimating that there was just enough room to get his car out. Although Steven proceeded with extreme caution, he was unable to pass the blocking car without breaking its tail lights and denting its fender. Upon Gayle’s return to her car, she knocked on Steven’s door to settle the matter. She courteously apologized to Steven’s wife for blocking the driveway, and then requested payment for the damage caused to her car. When it became evident to her that Steven had no intention of paying, she summonsed him to Bet Din. In Bet Din, Steven explained that he did his very best to avoid damaging Gayle’s car, but was not successful. How should the Bet Din rule – in favor of Gayle or Steven, and why? Verdict: A LICENSE TO DRIVE Torah Law 70 Community magazine