Abu Hanifah, Malik, and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i [shared this view]. Al-Shafi'i said in his other opinion: He is not liable unless he commits an act of transgression (ta'addi). Al-Rabi' said: This is the school of al-Shafi'i, even if he did not explicitly state it. This was also narrated from Ata', Tawus, and Zufar, because it is an item received by means of a lease contract, so it does not become a liability, just like the leased property itself. Our evidence is what Ja'far ibn Muhammad narrated from his father, from Ali, that he used to hold the dyer and the goldsmith liable, and said: "Nothing sets the people's affairs right except this." Al-Shafi'i recorded in his Musnad with his chain of transmission from Ali that he used to hold hired workers liable and say: "Nothing sets the people's affairs right except this." Furthermore, the work of the common hired worker is a liability upon him, so what is generated from it must be a liability, similar to committing aggression by cutting off a limb, unlike the specific hired worker. The evidence that his work is a liability upon him is that he does not deserve compensation except through the work, and if the garment were to be destroyed in his custody after he had worked on it, he would have no wages for what he worked on, and the loss of his work would be his own responsibility. This is contrary to the specific [hired worker], for if he makes himself available to the employer, he deserves compensation by the passage of time even if he does not work, and whatever he works on that is destroyed in his custody, his wages are not forfeited by its destruction.

Section: Al-Qadi mentioned that the common hired worker is only held liable if he is working on his own property, such as a baker baking in his own oven and on his own property, or a fuller and a tailor in their own shops. He said: If a man calls a baker to bake for him in his house, or a tailor or a fuller to bleach or sew at his place, there is no liability upon him for what he spoils, unless he is negligent; because he has surrendered himself to the employer, thus he becomes like the specific hired worker. He said: If the owner of the goods was with the boatman on the ship, or riding on the animal above his load, and the load was destroyed, there is no liability upon the boatman or the animal owner (mukari), because the possession (hand) of the owner of the goods did not cease. If the owner of the goods and the camel driver were both riding on the load, and the load was destroyed, the camel driver would not be liable for it