BK 84a Pt 5
ההוא חמרא דקטע ידא דינוקא אתא לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל אמר להו זילו שומו ליה ארבעה דברים אמר ליה רבא והא אנן חמשה תנן א"ל לבר מנזק קאמינא אמר ליה אביי והא חמור הוא וחמור אינו משלם אלא נזק אמר להו זילו שומו ליה נזקיה והא כעבדא בעי למשיימיה אמר להו זילו שיימוהו כעבדא אמר להו אבוה דינוקא לא בעינא דזילא ביה מילתא אמרו ליה והא קא מחייבת ליה לינוקא אמר להו לכי גדיל מפייסנא ליה מדידי:
A donkey once bit off the hand of a child. When the case was brought before R. Papa b. Samuel he said [to the sheriffs of the court], ‘Go forth and ascertain the value of the Four items.’24 Said Raba to him: Have we not learnt Five [items]? — He replied: I did not include Depreciation. Said Abaye to him: Was not the damage in this case done by a donkey, and in the case of an donkey [injuring even man] there is no payment except for Depreciation?25 — He therefore ordered [the sheriffs], ‘Go forth and
make valuation of the Depreciation.’ But has not the injured person to be valued as if he were a slave? — He therefore said to them, ‘Go forth and value the child as if it were a slave.’ But the father of the child thereupon said, ‘I do not want [this method of valuation], as this procedure is degrading.’
They, however, said to him, ‘What right have you to deprive the child of the payment which would belong to it?’26 He replied, ‘When it comes of age I will reimburse it out of my own.'
There are a lot of things to discuss in this text; who is responsible if your animal bites a passerby? Are there different circumstances that might change how a case would be handled? Is it degrading to compare a child to a slave? How else would you assign value to a lost limb?
The liability of the owner lies within whether or not the animal is out on the loose biting people or if it is tied up in its owner's farm. If the animal was indeed "of-leash," and it bit someone, the owner would be completely liable. If the animal was tied up in it's house but being treated poorly so it bit someone, the owner would still be liable, however if the victim of the animal bite had been previously tormenting the animal, then the circumstances would change. If a child decided t come to the farm with his or her free will and torment the animal to the point where the animal retaliated and bit the child, the owner of the animal would not be liable for the actions of their animal. I believe that it could be degrading to compare a child to a slave, however for the purpose of assigning a value to the lost limb in order to determine the correct amount necessary for compensation, it is not.
ReplyDelete#6
DeleteI think that the animal should not be blamed for the biting, the owner should because they are responsible for their actions. In some cases like the donkey they are practically untrainable, but the owner can take precaution before anyone interacts with the animal. An animal has no control over what it does, they just do these things because they find it necassary to survive. If the owner of the animal was controlled then there shouldn't be a problem, but if it is an animal (Donkey) which cannot be controlled then it is the owners responsibility to take precaution. If the animal had been trained and never bit anything and then it suddenly bit a hand, then it should be a warning and if it happens again the animal should be sent away. If the animal has a known record for biting others then it does it again, it should be sent away immediately. I agree with Adira i think that if the animal is on a leash (in control) and the owner warned the child that it could bite then it shouldn't be liable because it is in control and the child was warned. If the animal is out of control, without a leash and it bites someone it is the owners fault because they didn't keep their animal in control.
ReplyDeleteSarah Brill Comment #9:
ReplyDeleteThe person who is responsible is the owner. If the owner leaves an untamed animal out in the field, it is his or her responsibility to make sure that it is tied up or out of reach of humans. In this text, it does not state whether the animal was tied up or not. If a child climbs over an enclosed setting where the animal is kept, then it is the father or mother responsibility that the child is hurt, they should have told the child not to climb over. If the animal is out in the open and is tempted by the child to bite him or her, then again it is the child's/parents fault. If however, like I said above, if it is untrained and harmful and it is roaming the land, then it is the owners fault for not tying the animal up. Yes it is degrading to compare a child to a slave. Here are some differences. A slave is owned by and person, the owner has the control to tell the slave what to do and when to do it, if the slave does not do it, then the slave is punished. Also a slave is bought and sold; it is incapable of doing anything for his or herself so someone tells them what to do. A child however is not owned, they are free and born free. They have the capability to do things independently without being told what to do and when to do it. For example, in my life I don't get told to do homework, I do it because I want to get a good grade and go to college, so I am not told to do it, as a result I am independent unlike a slave. Also a child is not sold to a parent. I would assign value if for instance someone uses a certain limb more than another person, then that limb becomes of more value to the owner. The value depends on what you are doing for a living and what type of limb primarily does it involve.
Michelle Postolovskiy comment # 10
ReplyDeleteI think that an animal should not be blamed for biting. If it is the owners purpose to make that animal vicious then they should keep that animal away from other people especially children. The owner should also have a sign warning people that the animal (donkey in this case) is not nice and should not be touched. If the child disobeys the owner and/or their parent then the situation changes. The owner of the animal could say that the child disobeyed him/her and the parents and that is the child's fault. But a child may have forgotten and he/she should not be compared to a slave in any situation. A slave is a person who you use to cook, clean, carry things and so forth. A slave could be sold in the market, a child even with out a hand should not be compared to a slave because he/she can not be sold in the market. Slaves are not a good thing and that is degrading a child only because he/she has lost a hand/limb. In our world today you can get a "fake" hand/leg etc. to do the job of the hand or leg. The value of the limb depends on the person, for a child a hand is important to play and go to school. There are many reasons, but the child should not be discriminated just because of a missing hand/limb.
Adina #5
ReplyDeleteThe person that takes all responsibility is the owner. They have the choice to train the animal. If the owner wishes to keep their dog untamed, they have to accept all of the consequences that can occur due to this. He has to keep the animal away from other living things if he knows how crazy the dog can get. A way to prevent such bad effects is to have some kind of sign that tells people to stay away from the animal like a "BEWARE" sign that many people own. I think it is bad to compare a child to a slave. It is wrong and condescending. The value of the child's hand or leg is crucial. The child will not have a proper childhood if he/she lost it. Today you can get it fixed, however it is much different than what an actual limb feels like. No one should be condescended, no matter if they have a limb or not, no matter how old the person is, he/she is a human and should not be discriminated against.
Rachel Ship
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the child's injury does not always belong to the owner. If the child did not seek and receive consent form the owner to approach the donkey beforehand, then the owner should not be liable. If the child did receive consent from the owner, but handled the donkey improperly (teasing or attacking) then the owner should not be liable. The only time where the owner is responsible is if he left the donkey untied and unsupervised in a public area, allowing the animal to roam around and approach people, but if the donkey is tied to a post or is roaming around on private property (in the owner's field) and is unattained, then the child has no right to approach the animal and is therefore liable. If the owner gave the child permission to approach his donkey and then left them both unattained, or if the owner was watching the child with his donkey (after giving the child his consent), saw the attack coming, but did not attempt to separate the donkey from the child then the owner is liable. Whether or not the animal is trained should not be important, what should be important is whether or not the owner gave the child permission to approach his animal, if the animal is on private or public property, if the animal is restrained or left to roam on public property, and whether or not the owner takes his animal's tolerance and training into account when giving the child consent. Although comparing the child to a slave is convenient and efficient it is also degrading because it objectifies the child. A slave is viewed as property that is bought to serve a purpose, such as manual labor. They are valued as objects instead of people, which gives the child's father the right to be upset if his child is valued as a slave, because people are not objects and should never be treated as such. In order to assign value to a lost limb, one must take into consideration the victims physical and emotional damage, the inconvenience it causes to the victim, and what damages are permanent as well as what is temporary. Shame should definitely be incorporated with the compensation, especially in the case of permanent mutilation.
#5
DeleteAlex Gage Comment #8
ReplyDeleteMore often than not this case would result in it being the fault of the farmer. it would be if the donkey was out on the field eating unsupervised and it ate the hand. However, if the donkey was locked in his stable and the child was being a nuisance it would be his fault and not the farmers. the eye for an eye does apply here and even still does today because sometimes people to have to put a pet to sleep because it is simply just too aggressive. This is sometimes the only way to handle it. but lets say that it is the farmers fault the repayment should definitely be financial and not eye for an eye due to the fact that the farmer never actually committed the crime. He should definitely be liable for damages, medical, and not being able to do work.
Sarah Pomerantz Comment #7
ReplyDeleteI think that it depends who is responsibility when an animal bites a passerby. If there is a fence or a sign warning someone that the animal is not trained and will bite then it is the people walking past responsibility. This is because the owner did its best to warn you about the animal and if you were to completely ignore the sign and go up to the animal then that is your fault. It would be another story however if there was no sign and the person was just bit without knowing the the animal would bite. I think that when there is a sign and someone gets bit there should be no punishment and it is the victims fault. If however, there is no sign and the animal bites someone the owner is responsible.
Some may say that the animal should have been trained by the owner. However, this is not always possible. For example, my dog although he is not vicious he still barks a lot. We tried to train him but unfortunately he failed his training.
I think that it is as well as it is not degrading to compare a child to a slave. I think it is degrading because a slave is not important in society and it would be offensive to compare someone to what people think is the lowest of the low. On the other hand, it is a good idea. A slave needs all limbs in order to do what jobs their owners tell them. If you compare a child to a slave you are saying that they need all of their limbs for their life which is true. I think that they should wait until the child is older and choses a profession. Then they can assign the value to what the child needs to be compensated for their limitations on the job.
Alex Ravioli comment #9
ReplyDeleteIn this case the owner should be responsible for the actions of there animal. If the owner did not take the time to train there animal to not be so violent then the owner is responsible. The animal was not trained by the owner so that is why it is violent. But there is also the case that if there is a sign that there is a violent animal there and you go there then it is your fault for going there. In this case the owner put a sign out so that you can see that there is a violent animal there. The owner also has to train the animal so that it will not be violent because if he does that then it will cause less injuries. I think it is degrading that they compare a child to a slave. A child is not the same as a slave. A child holds a higher value than a slave because a slave is not as important in our society. A slave is much lower in our society than a child. I think what they are trying to say is that a child and a slave both need there bones and limbs for the future so that they could work and do other things. I agree with what sarah pomerantz said I think that they should wait until a person grows up and choses a profession and then assign the value the child needs to be compensated.
Aliya Lofland comment #9
ReplyDeleteI think that the owner of the donkey is liable for the child’s hand if the donkey was not contained in a proper enclosement, or got out because of improper tying or something that the owner was accountable for. If the child got into the pen or stuck their hand in it, then the owner is not liable. Why should the owner have to pay for something that was not their fault? After all, the donkey was tied and out of trouble. I think that is degrading saying that the child IS a slave, but only COMPARING the child to a slave should not be as big of a deal that the father is making it. They need to evaluate the child’s limb, and they do it by evaluating the child’s hand like they would evaluate a slave in the marketplace.