Rabbi Dayan received the following email from a relative of his:

I have a Halachah question for you. Last week I was babysitting for the family of a friend for a few days while the parents were away. Dropping one of the kids off at day camp, I pulled out of the driveway and backed into someone’s car that was parked in the street. There was a small dent that I noticed towards the back of the car that I hit, so I showed it to the owner. She said it was probably fine and that I shouldn’t worry about it, but I gave her my number.

She just called me saying that her son noticed that there’s a dent in the front door and the door doesn’t close properly. She asked if I remembered anything about it. I told her that with the angle at which I backed out it only made sense that I hit the back end of the car. However, I couldn’t be 100 percent certain that I didn’t damage the front of the car as well. She was fine with this and not upset.

But I want to make sure I’m not withholding any money I owe them. Am I responsible to pay for the damage?

“This case entails two basic factors,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “First, questionable damage; second, a partial admission.”

“Regarding questionable damage, the basic principle of monetary law is hamotzi mei’chaveiro alav hara’ayah – the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Therefore, if the damage is questionable, you cannot be held liable. Only if we knew that you damaged the door would you be liable” (C.M. 400:1).

“What if the car owner were sure that the damage to the door was done by me?” asked the relative.

“If the damaged party made a definite claim and the driver was uncertain, the halachah might be different,” Rabbi Dayan answered. “A person who admits partial responsibility (modeh b’miktzas) is required by the Torah to take an oath about the part that he denies. Regarding a Torah-mandated oath, the general rule is that if the person cannot take the oath he is liable (mitoch she’eino yachol l’hishava — meshalem)” (C.M. 87:1).

“Thus,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “if the owner of the damaged car claimed definitively that the car was also damaged in front, whereas the driver admitted damaging the back but was uncertain about the front and unable to swear, the Mechaber and the Shach hold him liable for the front. However, the Rama maintains that mitoch does not apply, since — unlike the classic case of a borrower who is uncertain how much he repaid — the driver is not expected to know the extent of the damage. [Furthermore, in this case, where the damaged party already said not to bother about the dent in the back, everyone would agree that mitoch would not apply, since there is no longer a partial admission of debt]” (C.M. 388:1; 90:10; Shach 90:18).

“I assume there is no difference if the damage was unintentional, as in this case, or intentional?” asked the relative.

“In a case where a person did intentional damage, the Sages instituted a special penalty,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “If he takes an oath, the victim is believed as to the amount of the damage, within reason. The penalty assessed to one who did intentional damage is the same as that of a thief; it is known as takanas nigzal, an institution regarding a victim of theft” (Shach 388:2; Pischei Choshen, Nezikin 10:38).

“In any case,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “you should be even more careful in your driving.”