Electrical Short Circuit (Due to Negligence) in a Rented Apartment Causing Significant Damage to Tenants' Property

Hello, A fire broke out in the apartment I rent due to an electrical short circuit, causing significant damage to my property, estimated at tens of thousands of shekels (electrical appliances, furniture, clothing, books, etc.). It is important to note that the short circuit was caused by negligence in the electrical panel located in the apartment. I warned and asked the landlord several times to fix it. I even photographed the leaks that were in the electrical panel after several power outages and short circuits that occurred. The landlord ignored our warnings for months (documented), and when he finally brought a professional, he "solved" the problem with a "band-aid" method, which recurred again and again. My question: Is the landlord required to compensate me for the damage to my property, or is it considered indirect damage (despite the negligence)?

Hello 

It is difficult to delve into all the details of a case that depends on the claims of the landlord and the tenant, so you should refer to an agreed judge. 

I am sharing with you what one of the rabbis of the Beit Hora'a wrote on the matter, so you understand the complexity of the issue:

At first glance, the obligation of the landlord in rental laws is to provide a functional house. The obligation of the tenant is to ensure that the house does not harm others, so in this case, the tenant has no claim against the landlord, not even to fulfill a heavenly duty, because the tenant should have ensured that the house does not harm others, including himself.

However, it is not so simple. On one hand, in the Talmud Bava Kamma 48a, it is stated that if an ox digs a pit in a neighbor's yard, the owner of the ox must pay for the damage to the yard, and the owner of the yard must pay for anyone who falls into the pit. On the other hand, in the Talmud 49a, it is stated that if a person digs a pit from his private domain to his neighbor's private domain, the digger is liable. Two explanations are given: one is that in the Talmud on page 48, the ox dug, and a person is a pit, not an ox pit, and on page 49, a person dug. The second explanation is in Tosafot Rosh, that on page 48, the owner of the yard knew that a pit was dug in his domain, and on page 49, he did not know that a pit was dug in his domain, and so it is stated in the Rema, Siman 510, סעיף ד.

Therefore, according to the explanation that depends on whether he knew or not, in this case, it is considered that he knew, and therefore the owner of the yard is liable, and in this case, the house is in the tenant's domain, and he is liable. However, according to the second opinion, it can be said that the exclusion of a person from a pit is said only in the case of an ox that dug a pit, but here the electrical panel can be considered as a stone or knife that caused damage in a common wind, and the landlord would be liable under the law of fire. In any case, we have not resolved the doubt, and the tenant cannot obligate the landlord.

However, if the house was damaged, the landlord certainly cannot claim compensation from the tenant for it.

I have shortened, and there is much more to elaborate on, I apologize