Question
My chasuna suit was very elegant and consisted of three parts: pants, a vest and a jacket. After wearing the suit one time at my chasuna, I brought the suit to dry clean. When it came back, the dry cleaner showed me that the jacket had been damaged and he said he would pay whatever Torah law required. To me, the suit is now worthless because I can not find the exact same jacket and without the same jacket the suit loses its elegance. Can I ask for the full price that I paid for the whole suit?
Answer
The first point that needs to be made is that the dry cleaner damaged accidentally since his machine damaged the jacket.
Your question is how to compute the compensation that one must pay for damaging one of a set since when one damages one of a set, the loss suffered by the victim is greater than the actual damage to the component part. This issue has been discussed by many poskim. Since there is no Gemara or SA that discusses this topic, the issue remains controversial.
It is important to clarify that there are actually two different situations where this question applies. One kind that is not controversial is where by damaging one component the remainder is worthless, since one cannot buy a replacement for the damaged part and the remaining part is worthless because it can't be used alone. An example of this is ruining a shoe. One generally cannot purchase an individual shoe and therefore even if someone damaged just one shoe he nevertheless must pay for a pair because one shoe is essentially no shoe. This is ruled explicitly by Rav Eliashev zatsal (Kitsur Hilchos Choveil Umazik seif 52)
The case which is controversial is where, by damaging one part the remaining part also loses value. The example that was often discussed is where a person destroyed one earring. Even though only one earring is lost, nevertheless, the second earring is not worth half of a set of earrings. The classical case is where a pair of earrings sells for a hundred dollars but one earring is only worth thirty dollars. There are opinions that since the owner of the earrings suffered a seventy-dollar loss, the one who destroyed one earring must pay seventy dollars. However, there are two reasons why others maintain that the one who damaged must only pay thirty dollars.
The reason why these opinions only award thirty dollars is that this is the value of the single earring that was damaged, and the one who damaged one earring is not liable for the earring that he did not directly damage.
There are two reasons (both reasons are given by the Rav Po'olim (3, CM 8)) that have been advanced to explain why the one who damaged is not liable for the loss of value that the owner of the earrings had in the remaining earring.
One reason is based upon the Gemara (BK 26B) that cites Rabbo who ruled that if a person threw a breakable item into the air that was aimed to land on a mat, and then someone, including even the one who originally threw the object, removed the mat, the one who removed the mat is not liable because his action only indirectly caused the damage and one is not liable for such causative damages.
The Rif (BK 11 B) comments that the opinion of Rabbo is not authoritative because Rabbo maintains that one is never liable for causative damages even, for example, if one burns a lender's loan document. However, the Gemara (BK 98B) rules that one who burns another person's loan document is liable since burning another person's loan document falls into the category of causative damages known as garmi for which one is liable. Rabbo did not differentiate between simple gromo and garmi. The Rambam (Choveil Umazik 7,7) concurs with the Rif.
The Ra'avad (ibid) and the Rosh (BK 2, 16) disagree with the Rif. They maintain that even though one is liable for causative damages that are categorized as garmi, removing a mat does not fall into the category of garmi since the one who removed the matt did act directly upon the item that was damaged.
The SA (386, 3) follows the approach of the Rif and Rambam but the Ramo follows the approach of the Rosh.
Returning to our issue: One who damaged one earring only acted upon the earring that he damaged and not on the second earring. According to the Rosh and Raavad the one who damaged is thus not liable for the loss of value of the remaining earring. Even according to this approach, the one who damaged is still liable in the heavenly tribunal (dinei shomayim) and should pay. However, beis din does not make him pay.
A second reason why some maintain that one who damages in cases like these is not liable is based on a concept known as hezek she'eino nikar - indiscernible damages. The Mishna (Gittin 52B) that discusses this topic rules that one who inadvertently rendered another person's terumo ritually impure (tomei) is not liable for the loss in value. Even though the owner of the terumo suffered a large loss since eating the terumo became prohibited, nonetheless, the one who caused the ritual impurity is not liable. The reason is because the damage to the terumo is not discernible. Outwardly the terumo food looks the same as it did before and it is just due to the law the terumo, that cannot be detected, it has been damaged.
Similarly, in the case of the earrings where one is physically damaged, the remaining earring looks the same as it did before. The only reason that the remaining earring has lost value is because it no longer has a matching earring. However, since this is indiscernible, the one who damaged is not liable for his action if it was done inadvertently.
A case of hezek she'eino nikar that was discussed by the Sha'ar Hamelech (Choveil Umazik 7, 3) concerned a lady who borrowed a fleishig pot but inadvertently put in a milchic spoon in a manner that rendered the pot treife. He ruled that the lady is not liable for the damage to the pot since it is hezek she'eino nikar.
We note that in your case, even if the cleaner bears responsibility for the vest and pants, since he has the status of a shomeir, he would still have no liability since a shomeir, according to the authoritative position of the Shach (363, 7), is not liable for hezek she'eino nikar. This point is made by the Erech Shai (siman 344).
While there are some who rule that the cleaner is obligated to pay for the loss of value to the pants and vest, nevertheless, based on the rule that hamotzi mechaveiro olov horayo - the one who wishes to claim money must prove his case, we can only obligate the cleaner to pay you for the loss of the jacket and nothing more.
In conclusion: Since the vest and pants are undamaged physically, the cleaner must just pay for the damage to the jacket. However, it is proper for him to pay more since many obligate the cleaner to pay the full loss.
