Community Magazine December 2013

Sol, a licensed locksmith, provides a 24-hour emergency locksmith service for his local neighborhood. One night, at approximately 3am, he received an emergency call to unlock an apartment door. Upon arrival at the address, he met a young religious couple with their newborn infant locked out of their front door. They explained that they had returned from a family wedding, and upon exiting their car, they accidentally dropped their keys down a sewer hole. After filling out the necessary paperwork, Sol skillfully pried open the door, allowing the young couple to enter. He was paid in full for his services, and left the premises after customarily depositing his advertisement flyer in the mailbox. Three days later, the police came to Sol’s office for an interrogation. They explained that they had found his advertisement in the mailbox and assumed he had provided entry. When he responded affirmatively, the police informed him that the young couple he unlocked the door for were thieves. The actual homeowners were on vacation, and the two thieves devised a nefarious scheme to gain entry into the home and ransack the apartment. The homeowners summonsed Sol to Bet Din, claiming that he is responsible for the theft, and is liable for $35,000 in damages. Sol, who was still baffled from the episode, did not feel he was obligated by Torah law to make payment. According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , just as it is illegal to steal, it is prohibited to do or cause damage to people or property. Primary examples of forbidden damage include assault and battery, torts against property, harmful slander, informing on another, and defamation of character. Generally, offenders are required to pay the victim monetary compensation, but there are some instances when an offender is exempt from compensation. A comprehensive list of all the requisite conditions lies beyond the scope of this article, but we present here the basic guidelines for determining liability for damage, emphasizing that a competent halachic authority must be consulted in all situations of monetary disputes. When a person causes his fellow bodily harm or property damage, he is liable even if the act was unintentional or accidental. The rationale behind this ruling is that a person is responsible for his actions and is required to take the necessary measures to ensure that he does not cause damage. Hence, according to many leading halachic authorities, if the damage resulted from an entirely unavoidable situation, one would indeed be exempt from payment. Since the unforeseen accident was completely beyond control and nearly impossible to prevent, one is not held responsible. A classic case is where a person damaged utensils that were placed next to him by their owner while he was sleeping. Although he broke the utensils, he did so under circumstances that were clearly beyond his control, as no steps could have been taken to avoid causing the damage. This ruling represents the majority view among the halachic authorities. Some, however, impose liability even if one inflicts damage through an unavoidable mishap. According to this view, Torah law almost never exempts a person from liability for damage that he causes. These authorities make an exception in the aforementioned case of one who broke utensils placed next to him as he slept, only because the utensils’owner acted negligently by placing his possessions alongside a sleeping person. In short, this view accepts the age-old idiom, “If you break it you pay for it” except when the owner of the damaged property is at fault. The Shulhan Aruch draws a clear legal distinction between one who directly damages property and who damages indirectly, as a consequence of his actions. Liability depends largely on the degree of the offender’s involvement in the incident, as well as several others factors, such as whether the consequential damage was immediate or delayed, predictable or unforeseeable. Additionally, according to several leading halachic authorities, one is liable for damage he caused indirectly if he had no intention at all to cause harm. And if one indirectly caused damage through circumstances beyond his control, all halachic authorities exempt him from liability. Enabling entry into another person’s property which subsequently results in loss or damage to the property owner’s possessions would certainly fall under the category of “indirect damage” and be subject to the guidelines outlined above. ENTERING WITHOUT BREAKING Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Torah Law photo by: Abraham Amzalak The Case Verdict: AN INNOCENT LOCKSMITH In light of the rules outlined above, our Bet Din acquitted Sol the locksmith of all liability. After determining that Sol fulfilled his legal requirements by recording the couple’s information before allowing them entry into the apartment, we ruled that he is free from responsibility. The information Sol recorded proved to be taken from phony identification, making it impossible to catch the thieves. Although damage was caused by allowing the crooks entry, Sol was a victim of a completely unavoidable occurrence. Since the incident was beyond his control and nearly impossible to prevent, Sol is not held responsible. Furthermore, although he enabled entry, he did not physically do damage to the contents of the home, and, as discussed, one who inflicts indirect damage unintentionally is absolved from liability. Unfortunately, the Bet Din received a police update informing us of two other similar incidents which took place about the same time. It became apparent that the couple were highly skilled thieves and that numerous locksmiths were unable to detect their disguise. Endnotes: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 378; Tosafot, Baba Kama 27b; Shach, Hoshen Mishpat 378; Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 386, and Shach; Maharashdam, Hoshen Mishpat 365; Rosh, Baba Kama 9:13; Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 388. 50 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE