Someone once saw his friend on the street and he was with his dog. He asked "Does your dog bite?" The man answered "No, my dog doesn't bite".
The dog then bit the man.
He said to his friend "I thought you said that your dog doesn't bite?!"
His friend answered "My dog doesn't bite but this isn't my dog".
I remembered that story when I saw this artice by R' Yosef Tzvi Rimon.
Question: A man asked a friend to help him fix his computer. The friend replied, "I am not a technician, but I will help you." When he opened the computer, he saw that the memory was not connected to the motherboard. He reconnected the memory, but the motherboard was destroyed because of a mistake that he made. Is he required to pay for the damage that he caused?
Answer:
A Professional Worker who does Damage
It is written in the Mishna, "A person is always held responsible for his actions, whether on purpose or by accident, whether awake or asleep." [Bava Kama 26a]. This would seem to imply that the friend must pay for any damage, since in spite of his lack of intention to do harm, "A person is always held responsible." This also seems to be implied by a later Mishna, where it is written that if somebody gives a professional workman something to fix and he damages it, the workman is responsible for the damage:
"If one gives something to an expert to fix and he damages it, he must pay. If one gives a box or a tower to a carpenter to fix and he damages it, he must pay. A builder who accepts a job to dismantle a wall and who breaks or damages the stones must pay." [Bava Kama 98b].
The Mishna brings two examples: A carpenter who receives a vessel in order to fix it and a builder who accepts a job to dismantle a wall and who breaks the stones (instead of keeping them whole, to be reused later). In both cases, the artisan is required to pay for the damage.
As a Favor or a Hired Job?
However, after a discussion in the Talmud (Bava Kama 99b), Rabbi Yochanan concludes that if the artisan is paid for his work he is required to pay for damages in all cases. But if he performs the work without being paid, the result depends on the conditions. If the worker is a professional, then he is not required to pay for damage that was done unintentionally, but if he is not an experienced professional he is required to pay.
Thus, it would seem that in our case, since the man who tried to fix the computer is not a recognized professional, he must pay for the damage.
However, the matter is not so simple. First of all, we must determine why a professional artisan who works for free is not required to pay for damage that he causes. Why doesn't the principle that "a person is always held responsible" apply in this case?
The early commentators do not agree on the reasons for the law.
The Tosafot explain that the professional worker is liable for the damage based on the laws of a person who causes damage, but since he is a recognized expert this occurrence has the status of a case of unexpected mishap, and the man is therefore not held responsible (similar to a case of theft or accidental loss).
The Ramban, on the other hand, feels that this man is not responsible at all, based on the laws of damages. He writes, "a professional who makes a mistake in his work is not considered as one who caused damage." Why is this so? This matter could be discussed at length, but briefly we can say that since he was given permission to do the job, this is not called "damage" at all (see Ramban, Ketuvot 34b; Machaneh Efraim, Financial Damages, 4).
But then why is a nonprofessional who works for free required to pay for the damage? After all, according to the Tosafot, a mishap caused by somebody working for free is the same as a forced event (like a theft or a loss of the object). This implies that one who works for free is not liable to pay for the item. And even according to the Ramban, a worker is not considered one who causes damage and he can only be charged if he was paid for the job (and in that way took on the responsibility for any damages or, if he will be viewed as the same as a paid guard).
This is explained by the SM"A (Sefer Me'irat Einayim) in a case pertaining to slaughtering an animal:
"For free, if the man is a professional butcher he is not required to pay. Since he is experienced and does not usually cause damage, we say that the bad luck of the owner led to the problem with the slaughtering. But if he was paid for his work, he should have taken greater care." [306:13].
That is, when the person involved is a professional, we can assume that he took all the necessary precautions. Then, if there was some damage, the problem can be attributed to the bad luck of the owner, and the worker is not directly involved. But when the worker is not a professional, we can assume that he evidently did not have the necessary skills to do the work properly and he should not have agreed to do it. If a problem occurred, it evidently stemmed from his lack of expertise, and it can therefore be considered as willful damage! This also seems to be the opinion of Rashi in this matter – that a nonprofessional should not agree to slaughter an animal if he knows that he might fail in the work.
"I am not a Technician"
The Talmud tells us (Bava Kama 100a) that Reish Lakish showed Rabbi Elazar a coin in order to determine if it was a good Dinar or not (not counterfeit, and so on). Rabbi Elazar told him the coin was a good one, and Reish Lakish replied, "Okay, I am depending on you." This implies that an advisor will be held responsible for damages only if the one asking for advice explicitly states that he is depending on the person.
The Raavad adds (Netivot 306:11) that if from the context it is clear that the person depends on the advisor he will be held responsible even if no explicit statement is made. Thus, if the advisor is paid for his advice (or is a hired worker), he is responsible to pay, since this is the same as if the owner explicitly declared that he depends on the worker.
However, if the person explicitly says, "Don't depend on me," he will definitely not be required to pay (SHACH 306:12, in the name of Shiltei Hagiborim).
In our case, the worker did not explicitly say, "Don't depend on me," but he did say, "I am not a technician." If he had not said anything, perhaps he would be responsible even though the owner knew he was not an expert (this is reasonable, since the passage in the Talmud which rules that a nonprofessional must pay did not involve only a case where the owner thought that the man was an expert – see Imrei Hatzevi by Rabbi Tzvi Meir, Bava Kama 99b, paragraph 3. However, if a man declares, "I am not a technician," he has explicitly said that he is willing to try to fix the device even though he is not sure he will succeed. This would seem to be the same as saying, "Do not depend on me."
Therefore, the one who tried to fix the computer in our case is not required to pay for the damage at all, because both sides understood in advance that the friend was not taking on the responsibility of fixing the computer but that he would try as best he could.
