himself into water, into fire, or off a roof, the pursuer bears no liability. However, if he falls unknowingly—because he is blind or it is dark—the pursuer is liable; the same ruling applies, according to the sound view, when the roof collapses beneath him while he is fleeing.

If someone entrusts a child to a swimmer to teach him and the child drowns, the full diyah becomes due.

One is liable for digging a well unlawfully—that is, in a place that is neither his own property nor unclaimed wasteland. If he digs a well in his vestibule and then invites a man who falls into it, the more correct opinion is that he is liable. The same applies if he digs in another person’s land or in jointly owned land without permission. If the well is on a narrow road where it harms passers-by, he is likewise liable. If it causes no harm and the ruler has authorized it, there is no liability. Otherwise, if he dug it for his private benefit he is liable, whereas if it was for a public benefit there is, according to the stronger view, no liability. A mosque is treated like a road in this respect.

Any harm caused by a building overhang that extends into a public street entails liability. It is permissible to project rain-spouts into the street, but any loss occasioned by them is liable according to the newer opinion. If part of the spout is embedded in the wall and only the projecting section falls, the owner is fully liable; if the entire spout falls, he is liable for one-half according to the sound view.

If someone builds his wall leaning toward the street, it is treated like an overhang. If he builds it upright and it later tilts and collapses, he is not liable—though one opinion holds that, if he could have demolished or repaired it, he is liable. Should the wall fall into the road and a person stumble over the debris or property be damaged, the preponderant view is that there is no liability.

If a person throws watermelon rinds (or similar refuse) into the road and someone dies as a result, liability is established according to the correct view.

When two destructive causes occur in succession, liability rests on the first. For example: one man digs a pit, another wrongfully places a stone beside it, a passer-by trips over the stone and falls into the pit—liability is on the man who placed the stone. If the stone-placer was not at fault, the transmitted view is that the digger is liable.

If one man places a stone and two others place another stone, and someone trips over both, liability is divided into thirds, though another opinion splits it in halves. If a man puts down a stone, a passer-by stumbles over it and then rolls it so that a second person trips, responsibility lies with the one who rolled it.

If someone stumbles over a person who is sitting, sleeping, or standing in the road and either of them dies, there is no liability provided the road is wide enough. If the road is narrow, the authoritative view is that the sitter or sleeper is at fault, not the person who stumbled; and liability falls on the one standing, not on the tripper.