Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/378

Paragraph 1- One is prohibited from damaging the money of another. If he damages, even if he does not benefit, he is required to pay the full amount of damage, even if it was unintentional or an unavoidable accident, assuming it wasn’t a completely unavoidable accident, as will be discussed. How so? If one fell from a roof and broke a vessel or tripped while he was walking and fell on a vessel and broke it, he would be required to pay for the full damage.

Paragraph 2- If one fell off a roof and damaged, he is required to pay for the full damage, whether he fell in a typical or atypical wind because that is not considered a completely unavoidable accident.

Paragraph 3- If one was climbing a ladder, and the rung slipped out from under him and he fell and damaged, and the rung was not strongly tightened, he would be liable. If it was tightened strongly and it slipped out or disintegrated, he would be exempt, because this is a blow from heaven. The same applies to anything similar.

Paragraph 4- All of the foregoing applies in the possession of the victim. If the incident occurred in the tortfeasor’s possession, however, he would be exempt unless he has intention to damage, as will be discussed.

Paragraph 5- Even when it comes to mere sight, if there would be damage to another, one is prohibited from gazing. Thus, a person cannot stand by another’s field at a time where he is standing by his standing grain.

Paragraph 6- In any situation where the tortfeasor is required to pay, regardless of whether it is in the public domain or the victim’s domain, and even if it is in the tortfeasor’s domain, if the victim brought in his possession without permission, and the tortfeasor damaged him, he would be required to pay, regardless of whether the damage was done with his body or his possessions, because while the tortfeasor had the right to remove him, he had no right to damage. This is only true where he damaged him intentionally. If he damaged him accidentally, however, the homeowner would be exempt. If the homeowner was damaged by the party entering, even if it was accidental the party entering would be liable because he entered without permission. There are those who say that this is only where the homeowner was unaware the party entered. If he saw him enter and he was damaged by him, however, the party entering would be exempt.

Paragraph 7- If both parties or neither party had permission to enter, and they damaged one another, regardless of whether it was their money or their possession, if they were unaware of each other they would both be exempt. If they saw each other, however, even if they did not intend to damage they would be liable. Therefore, if two individuals were running in the public domain or were both walking, and they were damaged by each other, they would be exempt. If they damaged each other, they would be liable.

Paragraph 8- If one party was running and the other was walking, and the walker was damaged by the runner, the runner would be liable because he did not have permission to run. When is this true? During the week. During twilight on Friday evening, however, he would be exempt because he has permission to run. ''This is only in a standard case where we assume he is running for the sake of Shabbos. If it known that he is only running for other needs and it has nothing do with his Shabbos needs, however, he would liable just like if it were a weekday.''

Paragraph 9- If one party comes riding on his horse behind another, and he encounters the horse the other is riding on and he hits the horse, he would be required to pay the entire amount the court evaluates how much the horse went down in value due to the blow. Even if the struck horse belonged to a gentile, and the victim was required to pay the gentile more than the decrease in the horse’s value, the tortfeasor would not be required to pay more than what the court evaluates. ''If young men riding to greet a bride and groom damaged each other’s properties via their joy and laughter, or any other form of joy, because they have this custom they would be exempt. If it seems proper to the court to great a boundary or fence, however, they have permission to do so.''