Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/412

Paragraph 1- If one places a barrel in the public domain, and another comes and trips on it and it breaks, he would be exempt because people do not have the practice to look around while on the road. If the person was damaged by the barrel, the owner of the barrel would be liable, even if he made the barrel ownerless, because anyone who makes something that he had no permission originally to do ownerless, is liable.

Paragraph 2- If he placed the barrel in a place where had permission to place it, such as an empty area in front of the olive press, and another comes and trips on it and breaks it, he would be liable. If the person walking was damaged by it, the owner of the barrel would be exempt because he should have looked. If it was dark or the entire path was full of barrels, he would be exempt from liability for breaking. If he tripped and was damaged, the owner of the barrel would be liable. The same applies to anything similar. If he filled the entire path with barrels so that it is impossible to pass, even if he broke it with his hands, he would be exempt. If while he was breaking it he damaged by its shards, however, the owner of the barrels who filled the entire path would be exempt because this person damaged himself.

Paragraph 3- This is only true by a person who does not have the practice to look on the road. With respect to an animal whose eyes are looking down, however, it does have the practice to look where it’s going. Thus, if tripped and was damaged by a barrel placed in the public domain, the owner of barrel would be exempt. If the animal broke the barrel while walking, it is foot-damage and the owner would be exempt. If it damaged by kicking, it is horn-damage, and the owner would be liable.

Paragraph 4- If one was a carrying a barrel and he tripped and the barrel broke and damaged others while falling, he would be exempt because one who trips is not negligent. Thus, if after the broken pieces of the barrel were resting on the ground someone was damaged by them or he slipped on the water that spilled from the barrel, the owner would be exempt under human law because he is one who has made his damages ownerless after they fell due to an unavoidable accident. He would be liable under heavenly law if he had time to remove the pieces. If he intended to acquire the broken pieces, he would liable for any damage they subsequently cause that now it has the status of a pit. He would be exempt for any damages to vessels. If he was negligent when the barrel fell and the barrel broke, he would be liable for damages that occur, regardless of whether it occurred while falling or after the pieces had come to rest, even if he made them ownerless.

Paragraph 5- If one pours water in the public domain, and another’s vessels become soiled from it, he would be exempt because the water is a pit and one is exempt from paying for pit-damage to vessels, whether he made the pit ownerless or not. If a person slipped on the water and fell to the ground and was damaged, however, he would be liable. All the more so would be liable if the water was absorbed by the ground and became filth and mud and it damaged, because now it is an actual pit. Even if it was the rainy season where everyone has the right to open their gutter to flow into the public domain, one would still be liable if it causes damage. All the more so would he be liable in the summer given that he did not have permission to open into the public domain during the summer.