Shabbat Parashat Vayeishev 5783

P'ninat Mishpat: Damages of the Building of a New Neighbor’s House – part I

Case: The plaintiff’s (=pl) house has been next to an empty lot in a yishuv (=yis) for many years. Recently the defendant (=def) bought that empty lot from yis and built; he is awaiting an occupancy permit. Pl claims that the building damaged his property in a few ways, and pl and def have complaints over yis’ handling of the situation. Def also has counterclaims against pl. [We will discuss specifics in installments.] Long ago, pl built an access ramp to his house (needed due to his mother-in-law), extending into adjacent public property (slated for parking, according to yis’ plans) and blocking access to def’s parking area and delaying def’s occupancy. Pl claims that he received an oral promise of permanent control from yis before building the ramp. A cliff overlooks the two properties, and it has a cave used by pl. Pl claims that def’s building caused the cave to collapse and made parts of the cliff unstable, requiring pl to hire workers to protect his property from rock fall, and he demands reimbursement of 19,800 NIS. Another beit din already obligated def 12,000 NIS on the matter, but the sides dispute what that covers.   

Ruling: The director of yis when pl built the ramp testified that he never gave people like pl permanent permission to use property outside the planned, mapped boundaries, but only permission to use the area until it was needed for its main purpose. Pl argued that he would not have spent tens of thousands of NIS for something temporary. However, considering that the cost should only be in the thousands, that pl got to use it for many years, and that there was a special reason for the investment (mother-in-law), this is not a proof that can stand on its own against the written plans and the director’s testimony. Therefore, the ramp must be removed without compensation.

Pl admits that def put a tractor and driver at this disposal for a day to remove the danger from the cliff, and that the driver worked according to pl’s instructions. However, since pl is not an expert in such work, he later hired, after receiving estimates, an expert and a contractor to remove the danger. The other beit din’s ruling of 12,000 NIS definitely covered destroyed property in the collapsed cave; the question is whether it also included remedying the situation. Since the ruling says that the sides should decide on steps to take along with yis, and, if necessary, return to beit din, it is clear that the ruling did not cover payment for the yet unknown steps.

The disagreement on in whose property the cliff is and the fact that the damage was indirect and was done by workers could influence def’s level of obligation. However, since def’s contract with yis states that the homebuilder must pay for any damage his building caused to yis or any of his neighbors, def obligated himself to pay under these circumstances without quibbling over legal details. This provision cannot be viewed narrowly to apply only to things the law/Halacha already obligate. However, because it is unclear that def’s work caused the cliff’s lack of stability and because pl should have gotten the job done for a lower price, we will obligate def 8,000 NIS based on compromise.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend