A: 40 meters 41 meters
2.H. Haim Pass: 40 m
A: 41 m
2.H. Haim Pas: So why
Q: So you're telling us
2.H. Haim Pas: (It's not clear, we're talking together) 75?
Q: You tell us in clause 1 the price paid is absolutely reasonable.
A: I may have taken it
Q: Could it be nonsense?
A: Maybe I took it as I said because the flooring was done on 75 meters, so I took the concrete floor on the area of 75 meters as well and not on the 41 meters that I measured.
- In their summaries, the defendants claim with respect to the amount of the claim that it is excessive and that expenses that are not related to the matter of the repairs required following the damage were included. For example, the defendants claim that the plaintiffs calculated the carpentry (kitchen) work as part of the statement of claim, even though they intended to carry out these works as part of the renovation, and also included in the calculation the work of reinforcing the building against earthquakes that were required to be carried out by the municipal engineer and were in fact not required as part of the repair of the damage.
- A review of Engineer Kravchik's opinion actually presents a picture according to which he made calculations relating to the costs of repairing the damage caused and not to other things that were required. On page 10 of his opinion, Kravitzik refers to the various costs, while explicitly stating that he did not include the cost of the tiles, since in any case there was a plan to replace the tiles, nor did he include in the calculation of expenses for sanitary ware, and in total he did not include in the calculation the sum of NIS 39,295 of expenses that were not related to the repair of the damage.
- The defendants' claim that a floor area of only 34 or 41 square meters should have been repaired is naïve. It is not possible to re-cast a floor only in a limited area, but when there is extensive damage, a new floor must be fully poured - this determination does not require an expert opinion and is judicial knowledge. It should be noted that plaintiff 2 also stated in her testimony that the engineer on behalf of the municipality marked the floor area in the apartment, which included not only the living room area, but also the corridor and another room, all of which were above the space that was discovered, and they had to replace this entire area. When the extensive space under the floor of the plaintiffs' apartment was discovered, they had to carry out the instructions of the municipal engineer as stated in order to repair the defects and remove the dangerous building order for the apartment.
- I will also note that the defendants' attempt to claim that since the damage was discovered in the living room area, the plaintiffs could have lived in the apartment during the repair and renovation is naïve and should be rejected with both hands. When extensive work is required, including re-pouring the floor and other work, it is clear that there is no real ability to live in the apartment, certainly when it comes to elderly people.
Mental anguish
- It seems that reading the statement of claim and hearing the testimony of plaintiff No. 2 before me is sufficient to begin to speculate on the mental anguish, harassment and tremendous discouragement caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the aforesaid. This is an elderly couple who, after living in their apartment for decades and upon their retirement, asked to make a relatively minor renovation of their apartment, and for this purpose they even allocated money that they had saved over the years. And now, robbery and breakage, the plaintiffs found out that their apartment was built negligently, a dangerous building order was issued for their apartment, they were forced to hire experts and rent alternative housing, and they were even required to incur large and numerous expenses in order to meet the conditions set by the municipality's engineer in order to repair the defects and return to their apartment. It is easy to imagine the anguish and even anxiety that gripped the plaintiffs in light of all the above, and for this reason I have found to accept their claim in full for this head of damage.
Conclusion