But - if xpioti knew her horse was mean-tempered and likely to buck you off, yet still encouraged you to ride knowing it was likely you would get hurt - wouldn't that have been evil?
Interestingly enough, that is *exactly* what happened to someone in my family: they took their child visiting a friend who had horses, the child got a ride on one of them, the child got bucked off, and the child's arm was permanently damaged as a result. During the aftermath, the child's parents learned from remarks made by the owner's son that the owner not only had known that the horse was bad-tempered and likely to buck, but that he often had trouble controlling it himself. The parents sued. The court found for the child, and the horse's owner had to pay medical expenses, plus some extra.
Do I think the court made the right decision? You betcha. The owner's actions were at least negligent, at worse malicious. Now, if the horse had been a proper mount for a child the owner knew was a fairly inexperienced rider and it happened to spook with the same results, then I'd say it was just one of those things. What some might call an "act of God". But knowing that the horse was likely to be a problem, and putting the kid on it without even a warning? That's another kettle of fish. That's *wrong*.
This is the case of the ox that gores (in Exodus, shortly after the revelation at Sinai -- Mishpatim, if that helps). If your ox gores someone and it's the first time it has done that, you owe damages. If the ox does it again, you owe damages and a fine, because you should have known better. There's a fair body of Jewish law on damages and negligence, actually; thsi is the proof-text for some of it.
(I know this is a Christian context more than a Jewish one, but since Christians use at least the ethical teachings from the torah, I figured it might be relevant.)
(no subject)
Interestingly enough, that is *exactly* what happened to someone in my family: they took their child visiting a friend who had horses, the child got a ride on one of them, the child got bucked off, and the child's arm was permanently damaged as a result. During the aftermath, the child's parents learned from remarks made by the owner's son that the owner not only had known that the horse was bad-tempered and likely to buck, but that he often had trouble controlling it himself. The parents sued. The court found for the child, and the horse's owner had to pay medical expenses, plus some extra.
Do I think the court made the right decision? You betcha. The owner's actions were at least negligent, at worse malicious. Now, if the horse had been a proper mount for a child the owner knew was a fairly inexperienced rider and it happened to spook with the same results, then I'd say it was just one of those things. What some might call an "act of God". But knowing that the horse was likely to be a problem, and putting the kid on it without even a warning? That's another kettle of fish. That's *wrong*.
(no subject)
(I know this is a Christian context more than a Jewish one, but since Christians use at least the ethical teachings from the torah, I figured it might be relevant.)