the second is the one managing it, so the liability is upon him. If there is a leader and a driver with the animal, the liability is upon both of them, because if either one of them were alone, he would be liable, so when they join, they both are liable. If a rider is with them, or with one of them, there are two views: one is that the liability is upon all of them, due to that. The second is that it is upon the rider, because he is stronger in terms of authority and management. It is also possible that it is upon the leader, because the rider has no authority while in the presence of the leader.

Section: The camel that is led by a camel upon which there is a rider—[the rider] is liable for its injury because it is in the position of being led. As for the camel led by the second camel, its injury should not be liable, unless it has a driver, because the first rider cannot prevent it from causing injury. If a young animal was with the beast, its injury is not liable, because he cannot prevent it.

Section: If the animal stood in a narrow path, he is liable for what it injures with its hand, leg, or mouth, because he is an aggressor by stopping it there. If the path is wide, there are two narrations. One of them is that he is liable; this is the school of al-Shafi'i, because his usage of the path is conditional upon safety. Likewise, if he leaves mud in the path and a person slips on it, he is liable for it. The second is that he is not liable, because he is not an aggressor by stopping it in a wide path, so he is not liable, just as if he stopped it in barren, unowned land. He is distinguished from the case of mud because he is an aggressor by leaving it in the path.

1615 - Issue: He said: (And if two riders collide, and the two animals die, each of them is liable for the value of the other's animal.)

The gist of this is that each of the two who collided is liable for what was destroyed of the other, whether it be a soul, an animal, or property, whether the two animals were horses, mules, donkeys, camels, or one was a horse and the other something else, and whether they were coming towards each other or moving away. Abu Hanifah and his companions, and Ishaq, held this view.