Is the custodian liable for loss if he violates specific instructions regarding safekeeping?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Deposits
Primary text
If an individual is entrusted with an item and instructed not to lock the container or sleep upon it, and he violates this instruction, or if he is told to use one lock and uses two, there is no liability (*daman*) upon him for loss. This is the apparent position in the Shafi'i school of thought, and it was mentioned by Al-Qadi. The reasoning is that the action taken, such as using an extra lock or sleeping near the item, constitutes a better safeguard (*ahraz*) for the item, and liability does not arise from taking a better precaution, similar to if one was told to leave the item in the courtyard (*sahn*) but left it inside the house.
Supporting text
It is narrated from Malik that the custodian is liable because he contradicted the owner concerning a matter in which the owner had a purpose related to safeguarding the item. This is analogous to if the owner forbade him from taking the item outside his home, and he took it out without necessity. The rationale offered is that sleeping on the item, using two locks, or increasing its security alerts a thief and incentivizes them to diligently steal it.