Community Magazine December 2012

Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Benjamin, and required Sam to pay the insurance deductible and expenses incurred from the damage to his truck. Sam was a renter who transferred the truck, without Benjamin’s consent, to an unpaid watchman. As discussed, a transfer to an unpaid watchman results in a lower level of accountability, and hence in a lower level of security. A guardian who makes such a transfer is thus held liable. Even though Alex, the unpaid watchman, regularly drove the truck for Benjamin, nevertheless, according to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, Sam retains complete liability. With no indication in the police report as to the cause of the accident, Benjamin maintained the legal right to demand a clarification from Sam which would obligate Sam to testify under oath. However, since Sam had not witnessed the accident, he was obviously not eligible to testify. Since Benjamin had the right to reject Alex’s testimonial oath that the accident was a result of circumstance beyond his control, he may proceed to collect from Sam with the claim that the accident was due to negligence. Benjamin is not obligated to accept the oath of an unpaid watchman to whom he had not authorized the transfer of the rented truck. Additionally, although Sam is liable to pay Benjamin, he may not attempt to collect the sum from Alex, the driver. Sam had entrusted Alex with the truck, and may not reject his testimony that the accident was caused by circumstances beyond his control. (The ruling in this case may vary if one of the parties involved is of Ashkenazic descent, nevertheless, for Sepharadim, the consensus of halachic authorities is to rule in accordance with the Bet Yosef, author of the Shulhan Aruch.) Sources: Baba Metzia 36a-b, Tosafot 36b; Shulhan Aruch – Hoshen Mishpat 291:21-25, Kesot Hahoshen 291: 12, Netivot Hamishpat 291:31, Pit’hei Hoshen 2:4:6; Yabia Omer volume 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10. Verdict: A HEAVY TRUCK LOAD JUDGE ! BE THE YOU BE THE JUDGE and send your response to YouJudge@Community M .com Verdicts – and the accompanying rationale – will be reviewed by the Rosh Bet Din. The first three correct submissions received before the deadline will win a $50 gift certificate to a Community Magazine advertiser! Correct entries will receive honorable mention in the next issue when the Rosh Bet Din’s verdict is printed. JACOB’S LADDER Jacob and Alan are next-door neighbors on the top floor of a two story apartment building. Both were experiencing water leakage from the roof of the building, and together they decided to inspect the rooftop. The entrance to the roof is accessed via a ladder leading to a trap door in the ceiling. After opening the lock of the door, Jacob ascended the roof first, with Alan following behind. When he completed his inspection and went back down the ladder, Jacob left the trap door open, since Alan was still on the roof. Alan descended down the ladder a minute later, but since he did not have the key to the trap door in his pocket, he left it open, assuming that Jacob, who had opened the door, would come to close and lock it. Approximately one hour later, children in the building discovered that the ceiling door was open and began playing on the roof, until, unfortunately, one of the children fell through the open roof door, and broke both his legs. The parents of the child came to Bet Din to decide which of the two neighbors are responsible for the damage sustained by the severe accident. Jacob and Alan both contended that the child should have known better than to play on the roof, but were willing to comply with the ruling of the Bet Din on the matter. Are they liable for leaving the roof door open? If so, are they to share in the cost of damage, or is Jacob or Alan solely responsible? HOW SHOULD THE BET DIN RULE, AND WHY? KISLEV 5773 DECEMBER 2012 61