Print this Article
Who is Liable for the Maintenance of Safety Standards?
Adapted by Rabbi Ariel Ovadia
This past week, a passenger train in Brooklyn, New York ran into a bumper block at the Atlantic station at the speed of 10 to 15 miles per hour. The train overrode the buffers and crashed into a room in the station building.
A total of 103 people were injured; 31 of them were taken to the hospitals with light injuries. Two carriages of the six-carriage electric multiple unit involved were severely damaged. The National Transportation Safety Board opened an investigation into the accident. The train event recorder was recovered and will be downloaded for analysis. The Federal Railway Administration also opened an investigation. Baruch Hashem, there were no deaths or serious injuries.
Incidents like these highlight the need for improved safety standards to prevent such terrible accidents. Ultimately, however, we tend to trust the railroad companies and their employees to maintain and uphold these standards. This brings us to our discussion. We rely on people to ensure the safely of so many things in our lives. We rely on the mechanic who says our car is safe to drive or the repairman who fixes our appliances. We rely on the baker and storekeeper to provide us with food that is safe to eat. But what happens when they don’t do their job? According to Halacha, are they liable for all the damage that resulted from their negligence?
While we would like to think so, there are serious conceptual challenges to this assumption. Generally, the Halachic theory of torts is limited to direct damages. At first glance this means that the repairman is not liable if the train derails or if my car malfunctions because he didn’t actually damage the vehicle. However, in this article we will present two approaches which broaden this responsibility.
A Lingering Guardianship
We begin with a case that came before a Bet Din in Har Nof, Yerushalayim. A woman brought her diamond ring to a jeweler to repair the setting. He repaired the setting and returned the ring. After she wore the ring it was discovered that the diamond fell out of the setting and got lost! Assuming that it can be proven that the jeweler did not fix the ring properly, is he liable for the lost diamond?
HaRav Shlomo Zafrani, author of Sefer Shimru Mishpat and a prominent Dayan, ruled that the jeweler is liable. He based this on the Halacha that a craftsman is considered a guardian (Shomer) on an item that is given to him to fix and is responsible for indirect damages. Normally that responsibility ends when the customer picks up his object. However, HaRav Zafrani argued, because it was never disclosed to the owner that the ring was not fixed properly and she should be careful with it, the jeweler retains his status of a guardian. This is despite the fact that the ring is no longer in the jeweler’s possession. It can be compared to the Halacha that if the guardian returned the item to the owner’s property but did not notify him, he retains liability. In the same way, when the jeweler returns a ring without letting the owner know how vulnerable it is, it is like he never returned it and is still liable for indirect damage (see Shu”t Maharil Diskin).
Based on this logic, a mechanic who improperly fixed a car, train, or appliance and caused it to get damaged could be held liable as a guardian. Because he did not inform the owner of his poor work he never lost that status and is liable for the damage. Although this is a good argument, it has limitations. It only covers the damages caused to the actual item that had been entrusted with him but not any other damages. To hold the mechanic liable for additional damages like the bodily injuries of the passengers requires a more novel approach.
You Have My Word
Our next case came before Bet Din Yashar VeHatov (Kovetz 5) in Yerushalayim. A hot water urn broke and was brought to a repairman to be fixed. The repairman returned the item claiming it was fixed and the customer went ahead and used it to boil water. However, the urn was not fixed properly and it malfunctioned and burned the person using it. The Bet Din argued that the repairman is responsible for the bodily injury for a very interesting reason.
The Mordechi writes that if one party in a dispute makes up with the other to travel to a distant town to have their case heard by that Bet Din but does appear, they are responsible for the other party’s traveling expenses. While this case would seem to be an indirect damage, they are responsible because the other party was clearly spending the money ‘because of his word’. This concept is comparable to a guarantor who assumes responsibility for a loan by just giving his word because he is clearly being relied upon. The Bet Din felt that this is a suitable argument for the hot water urn. The repairman knew that the customer was relying on him to make sure the appliance was safe, and therefore he is responsible for the damages if he was negligent.
This should be an excellent argument for safety standards. We literally put our lives on the line based on the assurances of the train administrators, engineers and operators. When we fly, we literally put our lives in the hands of the airline company. According to this approach the individuals who make these vital repairs and upkeep the safety standards know that we are fully relying upon them, therefore, they assume responsibility for any foreseeable damage that may occur if they were negligent.
As a final thought, HaRav Natan Gestetner זצ”ל (Teshuvot Lehorot Natan, vol. 15) discusses an incident where a person broke their tooth when they bit into a piece of bread that contained a metal wire. HaRav Gestetner had difficulty holding the baker liable based on the traditional halachic theories of liability. However, he writes that Halacha views secular laws pertaining to safety as binding. Therefore, once the government has created strict liability for the safety of food, a concept so vital for the public good, Bet Din could obligate a person to pay based on these laws. The same could be said of safety standards in general. It is possible that the very fact that these laws exist could create liability in Bet Din.