Shlomi examined the computer quickly. “The electric supply and CPU have to be replaced,” he said.

“How much will that cost?” asked Benjy.

“The parts costs $150 and the labor another $150.”

“Wow! That’s a significant amount,” said Benjy. “Maybe I should just upgrade and buy a new one.”

“That’s up to you,” replied Shlomi. “Think about it. If you want, I’ll repair it; if not, you can get a new one.”

“Hold off, then,” said Shlomi. “Meanwhile, can I leave the computer here?”

“Certainly,” said Shlomi. “I’ll keep it in the back with the other computers waiting for repair. When you decide, let me know and I’ll fix it if you want.”

Benjy returned home. He priced other models and consulted about the possibility of upgrading, but after a week decided to repair the computer.

Benjy called Shlomi. “I’d like the computer repaired,” he said.

“I’m sorry to report that last night my shop was robbed,” said Shlomi. “Your computer was stolen!”

Is Shlomi liable, and if so, what are the damages?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35874022)

I take it that the "computer storage" was being offered for free and my guess is that liability shouldn't accrue from a gratuity if the shopkeep wasn't negligent/malicious. There would be a ton of perverse incentives from that rule.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35874088)

You deserve what you get if you can't adequately protect your shit.

Even Jadakiss knows that: they say you deserved it whenever you die with your eyes open.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35901718)

the only trick is if can he somehow be considered a paid watchman on the expectation of getting business. he's not a gratuitous watchman in the traditional sense of a friend watching something. my inclination is that he's still a gratuitous watchman bc the halacha is strict and he wasnt getting paid at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35874228)

To me the better hypo would be Benji and Shlomi were out to lunch where Benji informs Shlomi he wants to do the repairs and when they return to the store they find out it was stolen but they don't know whether it was stolen before or after it was agreed to do the repairs. No idea how that one would play out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35874292)

as i understand it, the BOP is on the person trying to get the money from the other person. since benji is the one seeking money, HE will have to prove that the laptop was stolen after they agreed to the repairs. if they really dont know when the theft occurred, i don't see how he meets his BOP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35874345)

“The Mishnah (B.M. 80b) teaches that a craftsman who receives an item to fix is considered a shomer sachar,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Although the craftsman is not paid to watch, he benefits in that he was chosen to do the repair and earn the wages. Furthermore, he holds the item as collateral to ensure his wages” (C.M., Sma, Shach and Pischei Teshuvah 306:1).

“Despite this,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “in our case, it is doubtful whether Shlomi can be held liable.”

“Why is that?” asked Benjy.

“Kesef Hakodashim (306:1) addresses the case of a tailor who took leather home from a client in a distant city to sew it into a garment,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “He questions whether the tailor is considered a shomer sachar on the way, since he cannot work en route and the client can still retract.

“Pischei Choshen (Pikadon 1:[6]) notes that according to many authorities, once the tailor took the hides, the client cannot retract,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “He maintains that the tailor is considered a shomer sachar. This case is not comparable to a craftsman who notified the owner that he can pick up the repaired item and pay later, who ceases to be a shomer sachar, since the owner can take the item back at will and the craftsman no longer benefits, but when the tailor took the leather to work on it, he benefits also while on the way home.”

“What about in our case?” asked Shlomi.

“Pischei Choshen might also agree that Shlomi could be exempt, since Benjy did not make a final decision to fix the computer,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Although potential gain often suffices to render someone a shomer sachar, here there is no commitment yet. As it stands, there is no indication that Shlomi will earn anything. The second reason, that of holding the computer as collateral, certainly does not apply.”

“Thus, in light of the doubt raised by Kesef Hakodashim,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “Shlomi cannot be held liable, as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (hamotzi meichaveiro alav hare’ayah).”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35900156)

tl;dr: a gratuitous watchman is liable only for negligence, and a paid watchman is liable for pretty much everything

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3953782&forum_id=2#35901673)