Druckschrift 
Crime and punishment in Jewish law : essays and responsa / edited by Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer
Entstehung
Seite
96
Einzelbild herunterladen

96 Selected Reform Responsa

Malpractice Suits Against Rabbis

Today's Reform Responsa(Cincinnati , 1990),#50

Solomon B. Freehof

QUESTION: The Church Mutual Insurance Company founded by Lutheran ministers in 1897 has recently begun to sell malprac­tice insurance to ministers. This is an innovation and is based upon reports that there have been suits for malpractice when the minister gave wrong advice in counseling. However, a careful study of the situation revealed that, at the very most, there were only two such suits in the country. So it has been charged that the whole situation must have been blown up in order to sell insur­ance. However, nowadays when people are, as one person inter­viewed described it,sue crazy, and when malpractice suits have already multiplied against doctors, lawyers and accountants, this type of suit against ministers may indeed increase. Therefore the question now asked is: To what extent, on the basis of Jewish tra­dition, is a rabbi to be held liable for harm coming from wrong advice that he had given. The question is still theoretical and, it is hoped, may never become practical, but it is worth preliminary investigation from the point of view of tradition.(Asked by Rabbi Lawrence J. Goldmark, La Mirada , California .)

ANSWER: In one of the suits the ministers lawyer said that the suit is an anti-constitutional interference with the separation of church and state. This may well be argued on the ground that while lawyers and doctors may not practice unless they are licensed by the state, ministers are not licensed by the state, but are licensed by their denomination. The only authorization which the state gives to the minister is that if he is already accepted by the church as a minister, the state then gives him the right to offi­ciate at marriage, for the laws governing marriage are state laws: Yet even in the case of marriage, in which the state has authority over the work of the minister, is it at all conceivable that the min ister could justly be sued for malpractice when a marriage at which he had officiated turns into a tragic mismatch? When oné sees what a flood of suits could start in this all-too-frequent situ ation, it is clear that the courts cannot permit such suits. However