daf bit: Bava Kama 11

[cellio]

Tractate Bava Kama covers a variety of torts. In today's daf, there is a dispute about liability when one bailee (custodian) hands over his charge to another. If damages result, which custodian, the original or the new one, is responsible? R. 'Ulla says that the new one has liability -- especially in the case where an unpaid custodian handed over to a paid custodian, because we assume a better standard of care. Raba, however, holds the first one liable in all cases, because the person giving over the charge made a contract with him and might not have made such an arrangement with the new custodian had he had a choice. (11b)

I'm with Raba on this: if I hire you to do some job, then if you subcontract it that's your problem, not mine.

Comments

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

I was ready to assume something, but I decided maybe I shouldn't:

Going with Raba's interpretation: if the first custodian is liable to the person who gave over the charge, is the second custodian liable to the first custodian by the same logic? (You sue the contractor. Contractor pays and sues the subcontractor.)

That's how U.S. law seems to handle it. Would that happen under this, do you think?

[cellio]

I think so, but am not certain (can't cite a source). Here the question is left open, but I'm sure it's discussed in many other places. Also, remember that the talmud is far from the last word on things; to get discussion and rationale you go to the talmud, but to get answers you go to the later law codes, like Shulchan Aruch (which I neither have nor know how to navigate yet).