Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The damage that one causes with his car falls under the category of a man who damages with his body, where the rule is that one is obligated even if he did so by accident and even if there were somewhat extenuating circumstances (Bava Kama 26a). Classical sources (see Rosh, Shut 101:5 and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 378:9) discuss one who was riding an animal which damages, and a car is fundamentally the same idea. (The category of the damage done by one’s animal, which has different rules than a person who damaged, applies when the animal moves around of its own volition).
Def is to be categorized as going somewhere ‘without permission’ or ‘in an unusual way.’ This case is governed by the halacha of Issi ben Yehuda (Bava Kama 32a, accepted by Shulchan Aruch, CM 378:8) that if one who was running in the public domain and one who was walking collide, the one who was running must pay because he was doing the abnormal thing. Despite def’s claim, the majority of the beit din concluded that pl’s backing out of the driveway was done normally. The fact that there was a collision does not prove that pl was negligent. In fact, def did not claim to have witnessed any negligence on pl’s part, just that he reasons that had pl been careful about pedestrians there would not have been a collision. Beit din reasons that once pl passed the sidewalk, where pedestrians walk, he is not expected to concentrate on the direction where cars are not allowed to drive. It also appears that def was travelling quickly in reverse.
Therefore, since pl drove normally and def drove abnormally, only def has to pay pl. It can be demonstrated (beyond our present scope- see Chavot Yair 207) that even if it the one who acted normally could have avoided the damage with more care, he is not obligated to pay the one who acted abnormally because it is considered as if the latter entered someone else’s property and was accidentally damaged by that property’s owner. In this case, we do not even need to use that logic, as there is no indication that pl should have been expected to avoid the accident.
[Next time we will deal with questions concerning payment for fixing the damage.]
P'ninat Mishpat (802)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
206 - P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part II
207 - P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
208 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat:Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part I
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784
P'ninat Mishpat: Used Car with a Faulty Motor
based on ruling 84020 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784
P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part IV
based on appeal of ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785
P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part II
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785
Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.
Moreshet Shaul: A Crown and its Scepter – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 294-5
Av 5785
Good and Evil Depend on the Actions
5777 Tammuz 22
Following the Majority When the Minority Is More Knowledgeable
5771
