Q&A: Monetary Damages
Monetary Damages
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi.
Here’s what happened. An 11th-grade student hit a 9th-grade student. The hit was not meant as an act of aggression, but more like a kind of “good morning.”
As a result, one of the student’s earbuds fell into the road and was damaged by a passing car. The owner of the earbuds is demanding 500 NIS, the cost of both earbuds. The 9th-grade student argues: we’re not friends at all, so why are you touching me? By the way, I understood that people put silicone on the earbud so it won’t fall out, and these earbuds had no silicone. In the Rabbi’s opinion, what should the ruling be in this matter?
Answer
This is a case of a person causing damage, for which one is liable even in a case of accident or compulsion (when there was no silicone). And even if you view it as damage caused jointly with the owner of the car, still, when payment cannot be collected from this one, it is collected from that one.
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion this is not indirect causation, but rather like throwing something into a fire. And even in cases of indirect causation there is an obligation to pay in the eyes of Heaven.
Assuming that even this case is direct tort rather than indirect causation, without intent the ruling is exemption according to Maharshal and the Shakh, though according to Nachmanides he is liable. If so, why should he be held liable?
Because this is not even direct tort. It is direct physical damage.
Why isn’t this indirect causation? It’s like he bent his fellow’s earbud and placed it in front of a car.