A person rented a car and the engine burned out due to negligence

Hello, honorable Rabbi,
I rented out my car to a friend. During the drive, a red engine warning light came on, and the car immediately stopped, and it was impossible to continue driving. I had the car towed to a garage, and upon inspection it became clear that the engine head had been ruined, a repair that costs several thousand shekels.

I checked with professionals, and I was told that generally it is not reasonable for a car to stop immediately when a red warning light comes on. Therefore, it seems likely that the light had been on for several minutes before the car stopped, and the driver did not notice it. Had he stopped immediately when the light came on, it is possible that the engine would not have been ruined. In addition, the car had an engine temperature gauge, which likely rose several minutes before the car stopped.

The renter says that he does not know whether the light came on several minutes before the car stopped, and he also does not know whether the temperature gauge rose.

Is the renter obligated to pay for the damage, since it is likely that there was an early warning and he did not notice it? Or perhaps, since there is a possibility that the car stopped immediately when the light came on and the temperature gauge rose, it was not his fault, and the matter is considered “metah machmat melachah” — damage that occurred as a result of the normal use for which it was rented?

In such a case, do we say “המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה” — “the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract money from another,” and the owner of the car must prove that the light was on before the car stopped; or do we follow the likelihood, and the driver is obligated to pay even without clear proof?

Hello and blessings. 

Since you know that the car was in proper working order and that the warning light is supposed to come on in it, he should have paid attention to the light that came on and stopped. He is obligated to pay. 

Of course, if he had claimed that the light did not come on, you would be the one seeking to extract money from another, and it would be upon you to prove that it came on. But here he is not making any claim, and therefore he is obligated.

Have an additional question on this topic or need clarification? Leave your comment below. (Please note that the comment will not be published but will be sent directly to the answering Rabbi for review and a private response)