Q&A: Indirect Causation in Damages
Indirect Causation in Damages
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In response to my comment on the last post, you wrote — and this is your exact holy wording — "Even indirect causation in damages done unintentionally doesn't fit, because someone who causes damage unintentionally has to pay, whether it's indirect causation or not."
May I insist and ask that you explain in simple words why it doesn't fit? As I understand it, it's basically just a matter of social convention.
I don't see why most damages today are indirect rather than done directly by hand. [Accidents are not indirect causation, and pressing a button is not indirect causation.]
This answer is important to me.
This is also the place to thank dear Oren, who saved me in the dead of night from indirect causation in damages. (A tangible proof of divine providence?).
Answer
I didn't understand the comment about convention. What here is a convention?
Computer-related damage and harm to intellectual property are usually indirect causation. Theft and damage carried out through a computer are in many cases indirect causation.
Discussion on Answer
It has nothing to do with convention. It isn't logical to exempt it at all. And today it's more problematic.
What I meant is that if there were a social convention about it, nobody would think there was any problem with it, which to me means that it's not so far from common sense to exempt liability in cases of indirect causation.
Bottom line, if I understood correctly, you're not claiming that exempting indirect causation is inherently illogical; you're only claiming that in today's reality, where most damages are indirect, it's appropriate to impose liability even for indirect causation.
If reality is indeed as you say, then I definitely accept it, but I'm very skeptical about that.
Happy holiday of receiving the commands of the Torah.