Take note of the difference between them with respect to the ruling. His statement, “A private employee is not liable for damage caused by his hand unintentionally,” is because the private employee works as the hirer’s agent.

For example, you hire a worker for a month for such-and-such wage to work for you. One day, he makes a mistake in his work, and that mistake causes you loss. The author says: he is not liable, because he is working for you as your agent, and an agent is not liable for property damaged through his actions without transgression or negligence.

Another example: you hire a tailor for a month to sew for you, without specifying any particular garment or other item. You then give him a garment, or anything else, to sew, and he errs in cutting it. He is not liable, because he has not transgressed; he is acting as your agent, and an agent is not liable unless he transgresses or is negligent.

“A cupper, physician, or veterinarian is not liable, provided their hands have not caused excess harm and their proficiency is known; nor is a shepherd who has not transgressed.”

His statement, “Nor a cupper,” means that a cupper is not liable. Cupping is the extraction of blood from a person by particular methods. It has particular circumstances and times: at times a person is advised to undergo cupping, and at other times he is forbidden from doing so.

His statement, “or a physician,” is clear: he is one who treats human beings.

His statement, “or a veterinarian,” refers to one who treats animals.

These three are shared employees in one respect and private employees in another. If you bring them into your home, they resemble a private employee, though they are nevertheless shared employees.

His statement, “provided their hands have not caused excess harm and their proficiency is known”: the author stipulated