112 Selected Reform Responsa
reasonable period of time, certainly before the item was heavily used. I have found no responsa which deal with a latent defect or cases in which damages and liability were claimed decades later.
The matter of damages is much more complex because it depends whether this situation is classified as garmei or gerarma. Garmei implies liability and gerama does not. There is a considerable amount of discussion on these two terms without clear conclusions(B. K. 24b, 48b, 55b ff, 60a, 98b, 110a, 117b; B. B. 22b; Tur Hoshen Mishpat 232.21 and commentaries; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 232.20, 386.4 and commentaries). The general rule seems to be that the governing authorities impose damages when the public order makes it necessary or desirable. When the damages are indirect, can not be foreseen, and no public benefit is involved, then there is no liability(Tur Hoshen Mishpat 232.20, Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 232.21). For a recent discussion of this, see Epstein , Arukh Hashulhan Hoshen Mishpat, Vol. 8, 386.1ff M. Elon, Hamishpat Ha-Ivri, Vol. 1(Jerusalem ), pp. 173ff.
In each of the discussions cited above, the defect was found either immediately or after a reasonable length of time; it was apparent and not latent. That is not the case in the question which you asked.
We must, therefore, conclude that traditional Jewish law would not hold the seller responsible for defects of damages after a long period of time has elapsed, especially as the defect was latent and unknown to both buyer and seller at the time©! the transaction.
The entire matter may also be considered under the general classification dina d’malkhuta dina, and as the courts of the United States have decided that the seller responsible in this matter and that it is for the public good, it would be permissible for the con gregation on those grounds alone to bring a liability suit.