Simcha was making a siyum with his friends at his house. He came home from yeshiva on his skateboard and rushed into his house, leaving the skateboard strewn on the sidewalk.
The siyum was underway when Naftali came running along. He didn’t notice the skateboard lying there and inadvertently kicked it and sent it rolling along forcefully. The skateboard careened toward the street and crashed into the neighbor’s car, which was parked outside Simcha’s house.
Naftali rubbed his foot and was happy that he wasn’t injured. He moved the skateboard aside.
Meanwhile, the neighbor, Mr. Stein, heard the noise and came out. He saw that the skateboard made a long scratch in the paint of the car.
“What happened?!” Mr. Stein asked Naftali. “The car is scratched!”
“There’s a siyum at Simcha’s house,” Naftali explained. “Someone left his skateboard on the sidewalk. I was running along and didn’t notice it; it rolled into your car.”
“Go enjoy the siyum,” Mr. Stein said. “Afterward, we’ll have to talk about the damage.”
After the siyum, Naftali and Simcha came to talk with Mr. Stein.
“The scrape will have to be painted,” Mr. Stein said. “It will cost a few hundred dollars. Who’s going to pay?”
Naftali and Simcha looked at each other.
“The skateboard shouldn’t have been there in the first place,” Naftali said. “It was Simcha’s fault for leaving it there; he should be liable!”
“I acknowledge that I shouldn’t have left the skateboard there,” Simcha responded, “but you should have looked where you were running. You sent the skateboard rolling!”
“You each think that the other is responsible,” said Mr. Stein. “The truth is, I think that you’re both responsible. Maybe you should split the liability?”
“Or, perhaps neither of us is liable?” replied Naftali and Simcha.
The three approached Rabbi Dayan. Mr. Stein asked,“Who is liable for the damage to the car?”
“The Gemara (B.K. 27b) teaches that people are not generally expected to look down when walking in a public thoroughfare. Therefore, if Simcha wrongly left his items on the sidewalk where people walk, and Naftali inadvertently trampled it, Simcha usually does not have a claim against him for breaking it (C.M. 412:1).
“However, if Naftali did not merely trample the item but rather kicked it forcefully and thereby damaged something else, Rosh (B.K. 1:1) rules that he alone – not Simcha – is liable for the subsequent damage. This requires some explanation and background knowledge.
“Damage done by an inanimate item that is stationary is included in the category of bor (pit), which is exempt (based on a derivation from a pasuk) from damage to other inanimate items (C.M. 410:21; 411:1).
“However, the Gemara (B.K. 3b, 6a) teaches that when the item is flung by wind, animals or people and damages while moving, it takes on another character.
“When flung by the wind or dragged by animals, it is included in the category of aish (fire), which typifies damage that moves, so that the owner of the item is liable even for damage to other inanimate items (Rema 390:10; Sma 390:25, 411:1).
“When a domesticated animal flung the item, the owner of the animal may share in the subsequent damage, according to the circumstances (regel, keren or tzroros) along with the owner of the item, who remains liable as aish (C.M. 411:4-5).
“However, when a passerby flung or kicked the item forcefully, even inadvertently, and it damaged, Rosh rules that he is liable, not the item’s owner, because the passerby is considered negligent in this regard. Although a person who tramples an item while walking in a public thoroughfare is usually not liable for it, since people are not expected to look down while walking, he is not expected to fling something wildly. Therefore, he alone bears liability for the subsequent damage, like a person who actively and intentionally damaged, even for damage to inanimate items (C.M. 411:3; Aruch HaShulchan 410:43, 411:4).
“Thus, Naftali alone bears liability for the scratch,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “He is considered as having actively damaged, so that Simcha is not liable, even though the skateboard was his.”
Verdict: A person who inadvertently trampled something wrongly left in a public thoroughfare is exempt. However, if he flung the item forcefully and thereby damaged something else, he is liable like a person who actively damaged, even for damage to inanimate items.
