Q&A: The ground itself caused his damage
The ground itself caused his damage
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
Is there any logic or reasonable rationale behind Rav’s view regarding “the ground itself caused his damage”?
I imagine a case where a cleaning company washed a public building and did not put up a “Caution: Wet Floor” sign. An elderly person was injured and sued the cleaning company. They come before Rav’s religious court, and he rules that the company has no obligation to pay. When the injured party asked why, Rav the judge answered him: “You were struck by the floor, not by the water.” What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
The conception of tort law in Jewish law is not similar to that of a regular legal system. What determines liability is not blame, but the cause of the damage. The thing that produced the damage obligates its owner to compensate the injured party. The owner’s negligence is only a condition—meaning that if he guarded it properly, that would exempt him—but it is not the factor that creates the obligation. Therefore here, the owner of the jug may indeed be responsible and at fault for what happened, but it was not his property that produced the damage; rather, it was the ground. He only caused it indirectly. And as is well known, in indirect causation there is liability in the hands of Heaven, but not in a religious court. The same applies to someone who sets another person’s dog upon someone else: he is exempt, because it is not his dog, even though he bears full blame. And according to the view that holds him liable, that is because the incitement makes the dog considered his property for this purpose.
Discussion on Answer
That’s a complicated question. There are disputes among the commentators about what exactly the dispute is to begin with. See the passage there in the Talmudic discussion and the halakhic decisors.
Was Rav’s position ruled as Jewish law?