1. C. Eric Funston, "Made Out of a Whole Cloth? A Constitutional Analysis of the Clergy Malpractice Concept," 19 Cal. West L.R. 508-509 (Spring 1983).2. Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, No. NCC 15668-B, L.A. County Super. Ct, Cal. filed March 31, 1980, 157 Cal. App. 3d 912, 204 Cal. Rptr. 303 (1984), See also Case Notes, Arizona Law Review Journal, 213-36, (1985); 240 Cal. Rptr. 215 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1987); Robert Reinhold, "Justices Dismiss Suit Over Clergy," The New York Times, November 24, 1988, p. Al, A20.3. United State' v. Ballard 322 U.S. 78 No. 472 1944.4. Magunson v. O'Dea, 75 Wash. 574, 135 P. 640 (1913).5. State v. William's, 75 N.C. 134 (1876).6. Whittaker v, Sanford, 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 (1912). For a discussion of religious leaders' civil liability for intentional torts see "Comment, People V. Religious Cults: Legal Guidelines for Criminal Activities, Tort Liability, and Parental Remedies," 11 Suffolk U.L. Rev. torts see "Comment, People V. Religious Cults Legal Guidelines for Criminal Activities, Tort Lial'ility, and Parental Remedies," 11 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 1025, 1037-45 (1977).7. Elements necessary for cause of action in a case of negligence are outlined by W. Prosser and West Keeton, The Law of Torts, 164-65:1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against reasonable risks.2. A failure on his part to conform to the standard required. These two elements go to make up what the courts usually call negligence; but the term quite frequently is applied to the second alone. Thus, it may be said that the defendant was negligent, but is not liable because he was under no duty to the plaintiff not to be.3. A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the resultant injury. This is what is known as "legal cause", or "proximate cause."4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another.5. See Ericsson, "Clergyman Malpractice: Ramifications of a New Theory," 16 Val. U.L. Rev. 163-64 (1981); Funston, "Made Out of Whole Cloth? A Constitutional Analysis of the Clergy Malpractice Concept." 19 Cal. West L.R. 507-44 (1983)6. 9.403 U.S. 602 (1971).7. See B. Bergman, "Is the Cloth Unraveling? A First Look at Clergy Malpractice Concept." 9 San. Fern. V. L.R. (1981); Kimmerly Anne Klee, "Clergy Malpractice: Bad News for the Good Samaritan or a Blessing in Disguise?" 17 V. of Toledo L.R. 209-53, (Fall 1985); Robert McMenamin 45 The Jurist 275-88 (1985).8. 310 U.S. 296, 303-304 (1940).9. 240 Cal. Rptr. 215 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1987).10. Robert Reinhold, "Justices Dismiss Suit Over Clergy," The New York Times, Nov.24, 1988, p. A20.11. See Chavot Yair quoted in Pit'chei Teshuvah, no.2, who extends devar mishnah status to the decisions of Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Sema, and Shach. See, however, Baal Hamaor to Sanhedrin 33 who limits devar mishnah status to talmudic decisions and categorizes all post-talmudic debate as shikul hadaat.12. Rif to Sanhedrin 33a and Ramban in Milchamot Hashem suggest that the exemption is due to the limitation of garmi responsibility to torts. They also posit that judicial decisions are either gerama or that the requirement of a judge to render a decision is ones (duress) which exempts him from liability.13. Shach, no.5, rejects Ramo's ruling. Both Ramo and Shach hold that a judge, in deciding a matter of Jewish law, fulfills his biblical resposibility (mitzvah). It is this fulfillment, according to Ramo, which extends immunity to the rabbi who errs in judgment. Shach holds, however, that if the rabbi errs ruling contrary to Torah principles, he is not fulfilling a mitzvah and is, therefore, liable. For a similar analysis relating to medical malpractice see Norman Lamm, "Tippul Refui Im Yesh Bo Mitzvah" in Torah Shebe'al Peh, Mosad haRav Kook, 5744.14. For an analysis oE the stumbling block prohibition see Mark Dratch, "The Ethics of Selecting a Political Candidate," Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, No. Xl, Spring 1986.15. See Teshuvot haRashba, no.99; Darkei Moshe to Choshen Mish pat, no.38616. Hil. Chovel uMazik 6:1; Choshen Mishpat 378:117. Bava Kamma 60a.18. Dina deGarmi.19. Gloss to Choshen Mishpat, no.386.20. "Gerama and Garmi", Encyclopedia Judaica. VII, pp.430-3l. Albeck suggests that the difference between these concepts is that of foreseeability, with gerami referring to an indirect tort whose consequence is too remote to have been foreseeable, and garmi referring to indirect acts, the results of which should have been foreseeable. This distinction is not supported by Rava's definition of geramo in Bava Kamma 60a, where he holds that the gerama exemption from liability applies even if the fire was spread due to normal, foreseeable condition' of a normal wind.21. Rashbam to Bava Batra 94a, s.v. noten.22. Tosafot, Bava Batra 22b, s.v. zot; Mordecai to Bava Kamma boa; Or Zarus, Bava Kamma, chapter 2, no. 137; Teshuvot haRashba Ill, no. 107 and Meyuchasot 240; Rosh to Bava Kamma, chap. 9 and Bava Batra, chap. 2, no. 17.23. Rosh to Bava Kamma, chap. 9 and Bava Batra, chap. 2, no.17.24. Ritsba in Tosafot, Bava Batra 22b, s.v. zot; Mordecai to Bava Kamma, no.119, quoting Riva; Shach to Choshen Mishpat 386, no.25. Bava Kamma 100a.26. Ramban to Bava Kamma 117a; Rashba to Bava Kamma 117a; Maggid Mishnah, Hil. Chovel uMazik 8:1 quoting R. Hai Gaon; Gaal haTerumot, gate 52, sec. 6; Ravan to Bava Kamma, chap. 9; Teshuvot Masat Binyamin, no.28.27. Tosafot, Bava Kamma 54a, s.v. chamor, Bava Kamma 71a, s.v. Vesavar, and Ketubot 34a, s.v. savar; Ramban in Dma deGarmi quoting yesh omrim; Smag, Positive Commandments, no.70; Mordecai to Bava Kamma, chap. 10, sec. 180 in the name of R. Avigdor; Teshuvot haRosh, no.100; Hagahot Maimoniyot to Chovel uMazik 8:3; Shitah Mekubetzet to Bava Kamma 117b quoting R. Yehonatan; Agudah to Bava Batra 22b; Shiltei Giborim to Bava Kamma 48; Shach, Choshen Mishpat 386:1.386:1.28. Ramban, Dma deGarmi; Ketzot Hachoshen 306:11; Gra to Yoreh Deah 306:16.29. Or Zarua, Bava Kamma, chap. 9, quoting Rabbeinu Ephraim; Mordecai, Bava Kamma, chap. 9, sec. 116; Ramban, Dma deGarmi; Yam shel Shiomo, sec. 24, Shach, Choshen Mishpat 386, no.12. Or Zarua quotes R. YoeI who obligates the money appraiser even when the counselee is not obliged to follow his decision. See also Shiltei Gibborim.30. Rif.31. Baal haMaor; Tosafot, s.v. ahcvei dinar; Mitchamot Hashem; Ramah.32. HiL Sechirut 10:533. Bavo Kamma 26b.34. Shulchan Aruch also records the money appraiser's case with the laws of professional responsibility, Choshen Mishpat, sec. 306, and not in the chapter dedicated to garmi, sec. 386. Like Rambam, he includes payment as a criterion for liability.
Tuesday, January 01, 2002
Suing Your Rabbi: Clergy Malpractice in Jewish Law
Suing Your Rabbi: Clergy Malpractice in Jewish Law
By Rabbi Mark Dratch