Mrs. Friedman was shopping in the supermarket. In tow were her five-year-old son, Boruch, and two-year-old daughter, Malka. She placed Malka in the seat of the shopping cart and Boruch in the cart itself.
Mrs. Friedman walked up and down the aisles, choosing the items she needed. She stopped by the jarred goods and put some jars of jelly in the cart. Someone else wanted to go by, so she moved the wagon close to the shelf.
She turned her back to the wagon for a moment to check an item that was on sale.
Suddenly, she heard the clatter of shattering glass. Mrs. Friedman quickly turned around and saw Malka swiping at the jars of jelly. Baruch had gotten up and was also leaning over threateningly. “Malka! What did you do?!” she exclaimed.
“The jelly fall,” Malka replied, with a puzzled look on her face.
“Not good, my dear,” Mrs. Friedman rebuked her. “You made the jelly fall and broke five jars. See what you did?”
One of the workers hastened over. “Please move away,” he said. “We have to clean away the glass immediately, so that people don’t get injured!”
Mrs. Friedman moved he wagon along. She kept to the middle of the aisle.
Mrs. Friedman called her husband. “I stopped the wagon in the aisle of the jelly,” she said. “Malka knocked some jars of jelly off the shelf and broke them. Do I have to pay the supermarket for them?”
“I’m not sure,” replied Mr. Friedman. “I’ll call Rabbi Dayan right away and ask.”
Mr. Friedman called Rabbi Dayan. “My wife was shopping with our two-year-old daughter, who knocked some jars of jelly of the shelf and broke them,” he said. “Is she liable for the jars?”
“In almost all situations she is,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The Mishnah (B.K. 87a) teaches that a child under bar mitzvah age who damages is legally exempt, since he has no legal culpability. Nonetheless, Rama writes that a child who sinned should do some means of atonement when he matures. Thus, if he stole or damaged, it is proper that he or his parents pay.” (C.M. 424:8; O.C. 343:1; Mishnah Berurah 343:9)
“This would not seem to apply to a very young child, though” noted Mr. Friedman. “She has no intent at all to sin.”
“Even so, the mother is liable for a number of reasons if she negligently placed the child in a situation that damage was likely,” said Rabbi Dayan. “Some authorities compare this to a person who stands an animal, even one that is not his, on someone’s grain. The person is liable for what the animal ate, since it is natural and clear that the animal will damage and eat the grain. The person is considered as damaging through aish, fire, or garmi, direct cause.” (Pischei Choshen, Nezikin 5:39 [87]; Yashiv Yitzchak, vol VII, C.M. #53)
“And if it is not clear?” asked Mr. Friedman. “Let’s say the child was not so close, but leaned over?”
“There would still be an obligation toward heaven – chiyuv b’dinei shamayim –replied Rabbi Dayan, “for having brought about the damage, or grama.” (Moznei Tzedek, vol. III, C.M. #32)
“Does the parent have a responsibility to watch after his children?” asked Mr. Friedman.
“A person is liable for damage done by his animals, since they are his property,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “This rationale would not apply to one’s children, though. Nonetheless, some authorities write that a parent has a responsibility, as the children’s natural legal guardian, to watch that they do not damage.” (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 3:477)
“Thus, your wife must offer to pay,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “The store manager can choose to accept the offer or not, depending on the amount of loss and the store’s policy.”