Bava Kamma 28B

אבל הוא עצמו ⁠– פטור; קרקע עולם הזיקתו.

But if the person himself was injured, the owner of the jug is exempt, as it is the ground that caused his injury, not the jug or the water.

כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל, אמר לי: מכדי אבנו וסכינו ומשאו ⁠– מבורו למדנו, וכולן אני קורא בהן: ״שור״⁠ – ולא אדם, ״חמור״⁠ – ולא כלים.

Rav Yehuda continued: When I stated this ruling of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: After all, we derive the cases of damage caused by leaving one’s stone, one’s knife, or one’s load in the public domain from the case of one’s pit, and I therefore read, i.e., apply, with regard to all of them the inference of the rabbis from the verse: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), that the one who dug the pit is liable only if what incurred damage is an ox, but not a person, or a donkey, but not vessels.

והני מילי לענין קטלא, אבל לענין נזקין ⁠– אדם חייב, וכלים פטורין.

And this statement applies with regard to a situation where the person is killed, i.e., if one fell into a pit and was killed, the person who dug it is exempt from paying restitution, since the verse refers exclusively to an animal that was killed. But with regard to damage, the digger of the pit is liable to pay restitution for injury to a person, but exempt from paying restitution for damage to vessels, for which no distinction between death and injury can be applied. Therefore, the ruling in the case of the jug that broke in the public domain should be the opposite. The owner of the jug is liable to pay restitution for injury caused to another, as Shmuel holds that he is liable even if the injury is caused by the impact with the ground, but that he is exempt from paying restitution for the damage done to the clothes of the one who slipped.