Thus, the governing principle is that if he stops or ties it in a place where doing so constitutes wrongful conduct, he is liable for compensation.

Cars today are subject to the same ruling as animals. If a person parks his car in a wide place that is not in the path used by people, and someone trips over it, the owner of the car is not liable, because he has not acted wrongfully. Customarily, people park their cars in wide places, and this is not considered wrongful conduct. But if he parks it in a wide place along the path used by people, he is liable, because he has acted wrongfully. If he parks it at the side of a wide road, however, he is not liable.

But what constitutes sufficient width? It is that enough space remains for cars to pass. If he leaves space through which cars can pass, then he is not acting wrongfully, and this is the prevailing custom today.

But must we say that he must leave a passage through which two vehicles approaching from opposite directions can pass? Apparently, yes—especially on through roads. As for roads that are not through roads, they belong to their owners. But on through roads, particularly long ones, this must be ensured. Since we regard wrongful conduct and harm as the criteria, let us apply everything that occurs to this principle.

If he parks his car in a wide place while boys are playing ball around it, and one of them runs after the ball when it flies away and collides with the car, is the owner liable? He is not liable, because the place is wide and this is customary. The one who collided with it is like someone who collides with the wall of a house or the like.