What is the counter-argument against holding that depositing an item with an incompetent trustee absolves them of liability if they destroy it?

Primary text

The counter-argument asserts that liability incurred due to destruction before the deposit remains after the deposit, just as it would for a competent adult. The claim that the depositor authorized destruction is rejected. Entrusting the item for safekeeping is fundamentally different from providing an instrument of potential harm, such as handing over a knife, which is a direct cause of destruction.