The following appeared in the weekly chareidi finance magazine Macro.
An avreich launched a rental car company, offering vehicles by the day or hour. One such vehicle was rented for a night, used to travel from Bnei Brak to Haifa for a chasnah. The driver was pulled over and issued a summons for a burned out headlight.
The driver insisted that he was given a substandard vehicle and therefore, the rental company is responsible. The avreich saw things differently and the two agreed to have the matter adjudicated in the beis din of HaGaon HaRav Nosson Karelitz Shlita.
After hearing both side the beis din decided the driver was responsible, explaining that the vehicle itself was not given a summons, but the driver was for using the vehicle at night without a headlight. Because the fine was against the driver and not the vehicle, the rental company was not responsible since it is the responsibility of a driver to check a vehicle before getting in.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
It would seem that the rental company would also be responsible for providing road qualified vehicles. Though the driver is responsible to reject vehicles that are not. The fine is on the driver, but the driver has a case for demanding reimbursement since the company’s negligence cost him the money.
It is not the practice for a renter to perform a thorough inspection on a rent-a-car. There is reasonable expectation that the company had performed that prior to the rental. V’tzarich eiyun.
Btw. its Rav “Nissim” Karelitz shlit”a. (Not Nosson)
Did the Karelitz decision explain how the driver was expected to be able to drive the car (which was his purpose for the rental). Why would the rental company not be expected to provide a car in driveable condition and if not, pay the costs incurred for not doing so.
The renter rarely if ever checks the total condition of the car, rather just walks around and looks. The renter is an expert to understand what to check. It seems to me that the owner should be responsible for providing a car that can take the avrach to his destination at night with out being fined.
#3 – a separate question might be whether he could ask for a partial or full refund of the rental fee – but I think the ruling on that issue would be that since he used it anyway, it is considered that “he saw and accepted it” as is.
#1 – Once the ticket is on the driver, the driver would probably lose a case against the rental company, because they would perhaps be just a gerama and therefore not liable for reimbursement.
Yes, it seems that we all do not understand the Gaon’s answer. but HE is not going to reply on YESHIVA WORLD!!!
So, we are looking for a volenteer to request an explination from the Gaon for us little folk to be able to understand his heiligeh Psak.
Anyone?
i must start by saying how ‘beautiful’ it is to see young inexperienced people, who did not even hear both sides of the case expressing an opinion seemingly against one of the greatest poskim of the genertion!!!!!
who are we, next to rav Nissim Karelitz shlit”a, why cant we just accept a psak as given by one of the oldest and greatest of our geenration.
maybe, because “pnei Hador……”
and just for those who think different,
i rented a car in the summer, somone mentioned to me the headlight had burened out, i pulled over in the next garage and fixed it, quicker and cheaper than a ticket.
at a guess – not based on true knowledge just on the article – we are talking about a ‘black’ renter, i.e. a guy that rents his personal car. (besides the fact it is illegal and stealing from the insurance companies). it is common knowledge that these cars are not the best, not upkept the best, often inreliable, and somone taking such a car, yes! should be checking it for problems. those renting these cars ‘know’ the risks they are taking and they are not getting the best, yet they do it for economical reasons or because they cant rent elsewhere. there are no secrets here and if my theory is true the guy should have checked the car better.
had it been one of the big companies, hertz, budget, etc, it is unlikely this would have happened.
either way, please be careful before expressing an onion against one the gedolim, no matter who!
Wow!!
YWN posts a summary of a teshuva from one of our leading poskim, and within hours three of the poskim in the YWN beis medrash have already posted their own he’aros disagreeing with his psak! Amazing!
#1
It would seem that you and Harav Hagaon Rav Nissim Karelitz shlit”a seem to disagree on what the din Torah is in this case. Out of curiosity where did you do your shimush?
#2
There is reasonable expectation that the driver made his case in front of Harav HaGaon Rav Nissim Karelitz shlit”a and that despite your expectation the da’as Torah does not share your expectations.
#3
You should be a little more clear. When you say “Karelitz decision”, you obviously mean to say “the pssak halacha that was decreed by HaRav HaGaon Rav Nissim Karelitz shlit”a”. some people might not understand that and might think that you were disrespecting one of the gedolei hador.
@#3- yor blatant chutzpah and disregard for chashivus hatorah is disgusting. why come to this site at all if this is your attitude. your lack of understanding and bi’ki’us of hilchos choshen mishpat isnt really sufficient basis to argue on a R’ Nissim shlita.
Who said at the time of the rental that the headlight was defective? Maybe a light appeared on the dashboard to alert the driver of a defective headlight.
YWN moderators
Is it necessary to allow comments on such an article? Nobody says you need to post the psak of the Gadol Rav Karelitz shlita, but if you are choosing to do so don’t allow imbecile am haaratzim to argue on his psak and put down one of our Gedolim. Unless of course that was your intent in the first place. These days its hard to know.
It is of course wrong to disrespect a Godol, or disregard his ruling if you are one of the Baalei Din. But on the other hand it might be proper and commendable to discuss his psak and to analyze every possible aspect. That is the beauty of torah.
The very fact that it just on YWN and not going to affect the ruling of the B”D makes it totally safe. We can discuss it to death, and propose all kinds of theories to all kinds of related cases. We can even find novel explanations of the circumstances of this case. From one simple ruling posted on YWN we can end up writing a whole volume of a Teshuva Sefer! We can call it “Posts and Psaks”!
What a loss to the world if comments were not allowed.