Responsa for Bava Kamma 63:20
ממאי מדקתני או שהיו שניהם רצין פטורין הא תו ל"ל השתא אחד רץ ואחד מהלך פטור שניהם רצין מבעיא אלא הכי קאמר אחד רץ ואחד מהלך פטור בד"א בע"ש בין השמשות אבל בחול אחד רץ ואחד מהלך חייב שניהם רצין אפי' בחול פטורין
[The Mishnaic text however] not only fails to be of any support [in this respect], but affords a contradiction to Resh Lakish, [in whose view] the reason [even for the liability] is that the lying cow kicked the walking cow, thus [implying] that [the latter] sustained damage [because of the former cow] through sheer accident, and there would be exemption. Now, [the case of] the Mishnah surely deals with accidental damage, and still states liability? — The Mishnah [deals with a case] where the beam blocked the [whole] passage as if by a carcass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the liability extends even to accidental damage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A must pay for his wife's sustenance since by his action he has shown that he had not decided to desist from his shameful practice. One deserves greater punishment for striking his wife than for striking another person, for he is enjoined to respect her. Far be it from a Jew to do such a thing. Had a similar case come before us we should hasten to excommunicate him. Thus, R. Paltoi Gaon rules that a husband who constantly quarrels with his wife must remove the causes of such quarrels, if possible, or divorce her and pay her the ketubah; how much more must a husband be punished, who not only quarrels but actually beats his wife.
SOURCES: Cr. 291; B. p. 319 no. 780; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 182a.