Vicky was pushing her child in a stroller while window shopping in Boro Park. She went into a lady’s apparel store, and upon entering she was asked to deposit the stroller and her packages at the far end of the store, to allow free passage for other shoppers. At first Vicky resisted, as her stroller and packages were not obstructing the large passageway, but eventually she complied with store policy and took her child out of the stroller. After selecting several garments, she proceeded to the fitting room to try on her selections. Upon exiting the fitting room, she glimpsed at the far end of the store to check on her stroller and packages, and noticed they were missing. Alarmed, she ran outside the store to catch the thief, but she was unsuccessful. She then attempted to collect her loss from the store owner, claiming that he had assumed responsibility for her belongings, since she deposited it in the corner of his store at his behest. The store owner sympathized with Vicky’s predicament but was unwilling to bear responsibility for the loss. The two presented their dispute to Bet Din to rule on the matter.
How should the Bet Din rule – in favor of Vicky or the store owner?
Torah Law
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a person is not liable for the loss of, or damage to, somebody else’s item unless he clearly implies his willingness to guard it. Hence, even if one asks somebody to watch his item, if the latter responds to the request by obscurely saying, “Put it down,” the respondent bears no responsibility. Since this type of response can be interpreted to mean, “Put it down and watch it yourself,” he never assumed accountability. Even though he might appear as participating in the transaction, he did not indicate his readiness to assume responsibility and is thus not responsible for the item.
This ruling applies in instances in which one leaves an item in a public domain, mistakenly relying on another party – who did not accept responsibility – to watch the item. However, according to many halachic authorities, if the transaction took place in the private home of the recipient, he is deemed responsible even if he did not specify his willingness to guard the item. Since he allowed the item into an area off limits to its owner, it is obvious that he assumed responsibility to safeguard it. Unlike in a public domain, unauthorized entry into a private home is considered trespassing, making it impossible for the item’s owner to enter. Hence, as the item’s owner has no legal ability to watch his possession, the responsibility automatically transfers to the owner of the property once he allows the item into his home.
Other halachic authorities, however, dispute this reasoning, absolving one from responsibility even if he allows somebody’s item into his home, unless he clearly implies his willingness to accept responsibility. Although his property is off limits to the item’s owner, he nevertheless did not verbally indicate readiness to assume responsibility. The fact that he approved the item’s entry into his home may hold him responsible only if his personal property or belongings cause damage to the item. He is not, however, responsible for loss, damage, or theft caused by external factors.
A store, although privately owned, falls under the category of a public domain during regular business hours. Therefore, a store owner is exempt from all liability unless he explicitly accepts responsibility for the item deposited. This applies even if the item’s owner left it unattended, and the store owner was present and available to protect it. A store owner is obviously busy tending to his store, and cannot be expected to divert his attention from his own responsibilities.
Endnotes: Baba Metzia 81b; Baba Kama 47b; Shulhan Aruch – Hoshen Mishpat 291:2, 3, Derishah 291:3, Shach 8, Netivot Hamishpat 8; Teshuvat HaRosh cited by Tur 291; Even Haezel – Nizke Mammon 3:15; Kesef Hakodashim 291:5.
VERDICT: Enter at Your Own Risk
The Bet Din ruled in favor of the store owner, exempting him from liability for the stolen stroller and packages. As discussed, a store is considered a public domain, since people are constantly entering and exiting the premises. Therefore, according to all halachic authorities, since the store owner did not explicitly assume responsibility for the stroller, he is not liable. Even though Vicky entered the dressing room, leaving behind her belongings with only the store owner available to protect them, nevertheless, the store owner is not liable. Operating a store is a fulltime responsibility, and a store owner cannot be expected to divert his attention from his duties to guard a customer’s personal belongings. Although he had prevented Vicky from entering with her stroller unless she placed it in the far corner of the store, he never assumed responsibility for her belongings, thereby making Vicky’s entry “at her own risk.”
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
A Back-to-School Blunder
During the summer, Solomon borrowed $400 from his good friend and was unable to return the outstanding loan until after the summer. As a schoolteacher, Solomon received his first paycheck at the start of the back-to-school season. Anxious to return the loan, he handed the $400 cash he owed to a ten-year-old student and asked him to deliver it to the lender. Solomon was confident that the ten-year-old would safely deliver the cash to the lender, since the lender resided next door to the young boy’s home. But when the ten-year-old arrived home and told his mother of the cash he was carrying, she immediately confiscated the money and was appalled by Solomon’s reckless behavior. She then placed the money on top of the piano adjacent to the entrance of the home. A short while later, a delivery boy from a local grocer who was dropping off groceries entered the home, and evidently made off with the $400. The lady of the home notified Solomon of the unfortunate turn of events and chastised him for his reckless conduct. Solomon acknowledged that he acted unwisely, but claimed that had she not intervened, the money would have surely reached the next-door neighbor. Unwilling to compensate Solomon for the lost funds, and unable to find the delivery boy for collection, the matter was presented to Bet Din to resolve.
How should the Bet Din rule?
Is Solomon entitled to compensation or not, and why?