Claiming a claim in doubt

If the tortfeasor says that the damage did not exist before and he caused it, he is certainly liable. A confession in court. But simply put, the tortfeasor does not know either. He only knows that there was damage. If they simply do not know, it seems simple that he must pay. But if the damage is truly provided (not just due to lack of knowledge), then it really seems that there is a doubt of the claim here, and it is impossible to sue a provider. A claim of certainty does not exclude a holder, even if the holder claims that it is. Perhaps according to the latter's understanding that the burden of proof is on the harmer, even though he is the one being held, because there was negligence in guarding and now he has the burden of proof to get rid of it, it can be said that the harmer is liable. But it must be rejected in its entirety: 1. Perhaps this is said only if damage did occur but there is a factor for exemption and not if there is doubt whether damage was caused at all (in this case, he would only be liable according to the Abaye method according to the Rif B.M. Lo, which begins with a crime and ends with rape, he is liable even if the rape is not related to the crime. This suggests that there is a liability for the crime itself regardless of whether it caused damage). 2. This in itself is an unreasonable position. Therefore, in my opinion, he is exempt if he himself does not know whether he caused damage.