Q&A: Fire Damage
Fire Damage
Question
The Talmud in Bava Kamma 61b brings the view of the Sages: if someone kindled a fire inside another person’s property, he is liable for concealed items, but only for things that are normally kept there (for example, cattle gear in a haystack). My question is: what is the reasoning for the exemption? After all, he caused damage directly with his own hands—why shouldn’t he be liable for all the damage he caused?
Thank you
Answer
The question of the relationship between the exemption for concealed items and unavoidable circumstances already comes up in the Talmud and among the medieval authorities (Rishonim). I assume that if one identifies this with unavoidable circumstances, then in the case of someone who kindled a fire in another person’s courtyard, it is something like “it began with negligence and ended in unavoidable circumstances.” But that is only if such items are normally kept there. Otherwise, there is a kind of contributory fault on the part of the injured party (although that is indeed strange. Is he really obligated to the person who set the fire? He has every right to do whatever he wants in his own courtyard).