There is a Litvak beit midrah in this area and I was able to get over to there and look at the Ramban on Bava Kama pg 29 and I think I can share what I think is an answer to the question that I asked on him a few days ago. The question is that he holds a man always liable to cause damage. To him, it does not matter if it is damage caused by his own body or by his property. The question is from Abaye on page 28 b where he says openly that damage that he causes by accident is not liable. The Rif wrote that in a case of a fall by negligence and yet he decides to abandon his property before it causes damage that R. Judah agree with R. Meir that he is liable. The Ramban [Moshe ben Nachman] add to this and say that both R. Judah and R. Meir agree in a case of a fall by accident [not by his own fault] and he does not abandon his property that he is liable. This clearly is an answer for the Ramban that holds man is always liable to cause damage whether on purpose or by accident whether by his body or by means of his property. For here we see causing damage by accident does not relive him of liability. However, they would also agree in case of a fall by accident and he abandons his property, that he is not liable. Then you might ask, “Then in what ways do R Judah and R. Meir disagree?” Answer, they disagree about a normal case of tripping or stumbling. R. Meir holds that it is considered to be by negligence and R. Judah holds it is considered to be by accident. But in you can still have other kinds of cases where R Meir agrees that a fall was by accident and R Judah agrees in other kinds of cases that a fall might be by negligence and it is in these cases that R. Judah and R. Meir agree. There is support for this approach in a Gemara that both Tosphot and the Ramban bring that says if an ox brakes into a courtyard and digs a hole, the owner of the courtyard has to fill it up even though he is not responsible for digging it. The main idea of the Mishna and Gemara is that if one is carrying a barrel and he trips and the barrel broken and causes damage R. Meir says he is liable and the R. Judah holds he is liable if it was with intention. Abaye brings a braita that says if one trips and what he is carrying causes damage there is the argument between R. Meir who holds him accountable and the sages who do not. But if he put his stone, bundle, or knife on a roof, and they fall in a common wind, and they cause damage, he is liable. Even the sages agrees with that. But if he put his jars on a roof, and they fell due to an uncommon wind, everyone agrees he is not liable. Abaye said they disagree in two things. both during the fall and after the fall. According to how the Maharsha explains Tosphot, this means that R Judah holds either falling by accident or abandoning hi object with relieve him of the obligation to pay and R. Meir holds either a case of tripping by negligence or not abandoning one’s object will cause him to be required to pay, [but as I said before, according to the Rif, R Judah agrees with R. Meir in a case of falling by accident and not abandoning one’s object.] The Tiferet Shmuel holds differently he says that during the fall the only variable that matters is if the fall was by negligence or not. After the fall, the only variable that makes difference is if he abandons his property before it caused damage. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The רמב’’ן on Bava Kama pg כ''ט and I think I can share what I think is an answer to the question that I asked on him a few days ago. The question is that he holds a man always liable to cause damage. To him, it does not matter if it is damage caused by his own body or by his property. The question is from אבייon page כ''ח ע''ב where he says openly that damage that he causes by accident is not liable. The רי''ף wrote that in a case of a fall by negligence and yet he decides to abandon his property before it causes damage that ר' יהודה agrees with ר' מאיר that he is liable. The רמב''ן add to this and says that both ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר agree in a case of a fall by accident [not by his own fault] and he does not abandon his property that he is liable. This clearly is an answer for the רמב''ן that holds man is always liable to cause damage whether on purpose or by accident whether by his body or by means of his property. For here we see causing damage by accident does not relive him of liability. However, they would also agree in case of a fall by accident and he abandons his property, that he is not liable. Then you might ask, “Then in what ways do ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר disagree?” Answer, they disagree about a normal case of tripping or stumbling. ר' מאיר holds that it is considered to be by negligence and ר' יהודה holds it is considered to be by accident. But in you can still have other kinds of cases where ר' מאיר agrees that a fall was by accident and ר' יהודה agrees in other kinds of cases that a fall might be by negligence and it is in these cases that ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר agree. There is support for this approach in a גמרא that both תוספות and the רמב’’ן bring that says if an ox brakes into a courtyard and digs a hole, the owner of the courtyard has to fill it up even though he is not responsible for digging it. The main idea of the משנה and גמרא is that if one is carrying a barrel. and he trips and the barrel broken and causes damage ר' מאיר says he is liable and the ר’ יהודה holds he is liable if it was with intention.אביי brings a ברייתא that says if one trips and what he is carrying causes damage there is the argument between ר' מאיר who holds him accountable and the sages who do not. But if he put his stone, bundle, or knife on a roof, and they fall in a common wind, and they cause damage, he is liable. Even the חכמין agree with that. But if he put his jars on a roof, and they fell due to an uncommon wind, everyone agrees he is not liable. אביי said they disagree in two things. both during the fall and after the fall. According to how the מהרש''א explains תוספות, this means that ר' יהודה holds either falling by accident or abandoning his object with relieve him of the obligation to pay and לר' מאיר holds either a case of tripping by negligence or not abandoning one’s object will cause him to be required to pay, [but as I said before, the רי''ף holds ר' יהודה agrees with ר' מאיר in a case of falling by accident and not abandoning one’s object.] The תפארת שמואל holds differently, he says that during the fall the only variable that matters is if the fall was by negligence or not. After the fall, the only variable that makes difference is if he abandons his property before it caused damage.