Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 3:2 ירושלמי בבא קמא ג׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: If his jar was broken in the public domain and another person slipped on the water or was hurt by one of its shards, he must pay. Rebbi Jehudah said, if intentionally, he has to pay; if unintentionally, he is free.

HALAKHAH: “If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree at the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay³⁷As explained at length in the Babli, 29a/b, Rebbi Jehudah holds that in using the public domain one has to be mindful of others who use the same space. Therefore a person who runs into the scene of an accident is negligent and has no claim for damages. The majority hold that follow-up accidents are the responsibility of the person who caused the first accident. R. Jehudah will agree that if he did not remove the obstacle which the accident created, he becomes ‘owner’ of his ‘pit’ by biblical decree.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards³⁸Since the public domain is strewn with shards and other debris, these are ownerless and no responsibility can be pinned on anybody.
The position of R. Joḥanan is not clear in any of the Talmudim. The Rome text presents two opinions attributed to R. Johanan, the one quoted here and “they disagree at the moment of the accident, but after the accident everybody agrees that he is free.”. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, is it not an inference de minore ad majus afterwards³⁹That he should be freed from liability as explained in the preceding Note. Rome text: “is it not an inference de minore ad majus that afterwards he has to pay?” In S. Lieberman’s opinion (in his notes to A. H. Freimann’s edition of the Rome text), the Rome ms. represents an amalgamation of two different sources.? Why should he be free at the moment of the accident? For a person declares his damaged property in the public domain as ownerless⁴⁰Accepted in the Babli, 29a/b.. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land⁴¹Everybody has the right to fair use of public property. It is perfectly normal that one should be able to put down one’s load for a time before continuing on his journey, and other people have to be aware of this and be considerate. Private property on public grounds becomes ‘pit’ only at the moment it is left there unsupervised.
In general, “conditions on which Joshua did distribute the Land” refer to public uses of private property; cf. Ketubot 13:7 Note 107, Nazir 7:1 Note 40. This condition is not mentioned in any other source..” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he intended use of the potsherds⁴²Here starts the discussion of what R. Jehudah calls “intentional accident” which makes the owner of the jar liable. If the owner of the jar intends to use the shards (e. g., as writing material), he does not declare them ownerless and the reason given for freeing him from payment does not apply.. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage⁴³If he does not clean up after the accident, he shows that he does not care about what happens to others; this explains R. Eleazar’s opinion that after the accident even R. Jehudah requires payment.. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi La both say that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull who gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to walking damage.