Reference for Bava Kamma 69:14
היו שנים רודפים אחר אחד זה אומר שורך הזיק וזה אומר שורך הזיק
Is it not stated there [that were the owner to have set fire to a barn on Sabbath there would be no civil liability] AS HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CAPITAL CHARGE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 192, n. 8. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — It only means to say this: Since if he would have committed it maliciously he would have been liable to a capital charge, as, e.g., where he had need of the ashes, there should be exemption [from civil liability] even in such a case as this where he did it inadvertently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the basis of the teaching of Hezekiah. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF AN OX WAS PURSUING AN OTHER'S OX WHICH WAS [AFTERWARDS FOUND TO BE] INJURED, AND THE ONE [PLAINTIFF] SAYS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE, WHILE THE OTHER PLEADS, 'NOT SO, BUT IT WAS INJURED BY A ROCK [AGAINST WHICH IT HAD BEEN RUBBING ITSELF]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denying thus any liability. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE CLAIMANT. [SO ALSO] WHERE TWO [OXEN] PURSUED ONE AND THE ONE DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE', WHILE THE OTHER DEFENDANT ASSERTS, 'IT WAS YOUR OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE',