However, according to the explanatory notes to the Aviation Services Law, the purpose of the law is to "indemnify passengers for expenses incurred by them" (emphasis not in the original - A.M.), in order not to cause them a real loss of pocket. However, it was determined, for example, regarding statutory compensation, a uniform compensation that embodies both indirect expenses and mental anguish, as each passenger experiences it differently, there are those who experience greater mental anguish and some who suffer less, and there are those who suffer greater indirect damages and some who do not, without the need to prove damage. I am of the opinion that even where food expenses have not been proven in receipts, as opposed to a hotel that provides receipts and it is possible to preserve one receipt, when as opposed to staying with another and saving costs, then there is no logic in paying that passenger for assistance services that he did not incur any payment (see Hillel Akiva Barak v. El Al above), it seems that there is no dispute that even if a passenger stayed with another and dined with him, These are two days in which he must have needed food, and therefore, where he declares or testifies that he did have expenses but no receipts were kept and the duty is on the airline to provide him with the service and he provided it for himself in its place (as opposed to a case where he did not provide it, even if it should have provided), then his testimony or affidavit can be seen as actual proof that he bore ownership and the question is about the ability to estimate how much he spent from the written receipts that were required by the defendant have evidentiary force to prove their performance, but there is no lack of The use of procedural tools in the form of sending receipts to testify that they did not eat, but rather the significance on the evidentiary level regarding the difficulty of proving exactly how much he spent. Therefore, in these circumstances, when it is clear that the duty is imposed on the plaintiff and where there is evidence in the form of testimony or affidavit that a passenger ate but did not keep the receipts, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to calculate the amount accurately in order to reject the claim for restitution and exempt the airline from its obligation, and it will also be possible to rule according to an estimate when the criterion is the receipts collected by the other passengers. When another result of the rejection of their claim for this component means profit or savings for the defendant at the expense of the passenger, and a notional refund when the passenger testified that he did eat or that he did not keep receipts, it does not enrich him, all the more so that the defendant would have paid and would not have been precise about his expenses, but would have given more, when there is no dispute regarding its commitment to the assistance services, which is the party responsible for disruptions in the passenger's flight plans (as stated in the explanatory notes to the law, and hence also the person responsible to provide benefits to the passenger as stated therein) which in any case was supposed to provide or pay even if retroactively. With regard to compensation in such cases by way of estimation, the words of the Honorable Justice Hayut as described at the time in Other Municipal Applications (6720/99 Matan Parfra v. Arthur Goldo, August 28, 2005) are as follows: "I will add that I accept the principle upon which the trial court guided itself in determining compensation by way of estimation in various matters, even though the appellants did not present evidence in those matters to substantiate every tag and mark of the damage. Indeed, there may be cases in which the court is convinced that there is damage that deserves to be compensated, and that in the absence of compensation, the rights of the injured party will be substantially deprived. In such cases, it is not impossible that the court will award compensation by way of the global estimate "on the low and safe side, in order to maintain the proper balance" (ibid., at paragraph 9). It should also be noted that the plaintiffs do insist on reimbursement of consideration (and see and compare to Civil Case 9586-09-22 Mary Ohayon v. El Al Israel Airlines in Tax Appeal (February 2, 2025), where nothing was ruled for the plaintiffs who did not prove this element in practice in the absence of receipts, but there the plaintiffs waived reimbursement of their expenses, but the court granted their claim for statutory compensation as well as exemplary compensation). Therefore, I award a sum of $50 per day per person (for 3 meals, also taking into account the eve of a holiday for observant traditions) and a total of $83 per two days per person (for two additional meals on the following day, when they arrived at the airport it was found that vouchers of $20 had been distributed for food as provided by the station manager, plaintiff 26 and plaintiffs 45-46), where receipts were not presented or by way of completion where partial receipts were presented. It should be noted that the expenses supported by the receipts showed expenses on a similar scale.
- In our case, and to summarize this point regarding food, at 01:00 on October 20, El Al announced the cancellation of the flight, and the alternative flight was scheduled for October 21 at 19:15. The total waiting time was almost 36 hours, a period during which the defendant was required to provide the passengers with food and drink. The evidence shows that if services were provided, they were provided to a small number of passengers and in an insufficient quantity in relation to the waiting time, but it should not be forgotten that most of them were not at the airport. The difficulty is for those who were at the airport until 4:00-5:00 (or even about 3:00 and arrived at the hotel at 4:00) even if a meal was offered on the plane itself before two hours of waiting had passed, then the entitlement begins (and not necessarily eaten) and there are no restaurants or stalls open at night at the airport as stated by the station manager when it is not known how many of the plaintiffs waited to get a hotel room when the vouchers at the airport were given the next day by waiting at the airport for departure on the alternative flight as part of a third meal if the flight is In the evening (after which a meal is served on the plane) when it is still a waiting time for the airline to provide food to the passenger, when previously the passengers were outside the airport and it is obligated to reimburse their expenses during their waiting time until the flight to Israel. Therefore, those who stayed at the airport in order to be provided with a hotel and the time in which meals were offered on the plane had already passed and three hours had passed since then, when most of them left for an independent hotel site and therefore at that time they were no longer at the airport and therefore their expenses outside the airport can be refunded, but for those who remained and could not be provided that the restaurants at the airport were closed and waited until 4:00 a.m., they were conceptually indemnified at $15 per person (as derived from the voucher she provided for actual food, which was $20). As a criterion when the restaurants were open in the field, a kind of per diem fee (a place where there is no dining room).
- With regard to the hotel accommodation services, since there is no dispute that the cancellation of the original flight obligated the passengers to stay away from their homes for an additional two nights (since the original flight was at night) - there is no dispute on this issue as well that the defendant was unable to provide accommodation for all the passengers who were supposed to fly on the original flight. However, she was able to obtain rooms for only some of the passengers, but only a few claimed in their testimony that they waited and were told that there was no room and that they would search on their own, while the rest stated that they did say that there were no rooms at that time and could wait until they could help find a room or someone who could take care of it independently, who would go - that is, "can" - were given options. This is also understood from what is stated in the report on which the station manager was interrogated that he did indeed say that there were no rooms, but this should be read in the context in which it was stated that since the search did not stop there and they did not stop searching (when there is an external company that worked to ensure that even if it was not presented who that company was - a third party - this is not hidden and there is no dispute that rooms were provided to some of the plaintiffs, but their objection was, as stated, in relation to the low level of the hotel and its rooms). There was also a real-time registration of passengers who had a place to stay in New York, and then again a registration of passengers who had an arrangement in New York and their mobile phone number was recorded, in a way that showed that they did provide service and examined whether the passenger had an alternative place. Where an option was given, then the plaintiffs' claim in their statement of claim that "the search for the hotels was imposed on the plaintiffs independently" is inaccurate. Claims that the hotel is far from a tourist destination and requires taxi travel - does not negate the fact that it did provide, even if not to the taste of the passengers. Similarly, it cannot be claimed that she placed the passengers in the hotels at a low level according to the same impression and therefore is likened to one who did not provide anything when the law does not refer to the obligation to a certain level of rooms and there may be an inconvenience that is not dependent on her and she was not aware of it in advance, and only through the feedback of passengers can she plan her steps for the future, and she was not questioned about her previous knowledge regarding these hotels or on past complaints by passengers. On the contrary, she lured five of our passengers to the Hyatt Hotel if they had taken care of them independently (see p. 48, paras. 7-8 of Mr. Grubstein's testimony), and as far as she was concerned, all the passengers would have taken care of themselves and she would have given up instead of continuing to look for accommodations herself. It should be clarified that of all those who reported a small room structure in such a way that they were forced to share a double bed with family members in the hotels provided by the defendant or to share a double bed with family members or to share a room with strangers in hotels that were independently located - no one reported in real time (even by contacting the station manager who appeared to be available since some of the hotels did not receive passengers due to the fact that they were not provided with a commitment and therefore he intervened). As well as it appears that he agreed to give his phone number when he was in contact with one of the passengers who provided her with an alternative flight and was available for her), when the person who applied for a refund did receive a refund but did not complain when contacted in Israel with his request for a refund, and therefore in this situation there is a difficulty in claiming that the "knowingly" element exists, all the more so this is a hotel that the defendant did not provide and certainly when they did not contact this matter in writing before filing the claim in order to bring it to its attention, It is not impossible that in those circumstances she would have compensated. However, I was of the opinion that where it turned out that two passengers shared the same single bed when strangers were in the same room, there is room to compensate since the assistance was not actually given to the same person. This is despite the fact that this is a hotel that the plaintiffs independently located. This is because in a case in which a passenger acceded to the defendant's offer and found a hotel alone late at night, and there, with no other choice, he was forced to stay in one room with strangers, at the mercy of the other in their room at their expense, as it turned out, then there is no reason to exempt the defendant from payment since they were forced to sleep together in the same room, under the discomfort of two or three couples who acted in accordance with her instructions, when she is the one who is obligated to provide assistance services to each and every one of them. This is not supposed to "save" her the cost of an additional room in view of the situation in which in any case, if he had contacted her in real time, they would have split the passengers and found another room. Therefore, the compensation in this matter will be in the amount of "notional restitution" where they would have rented an additional room, or alternatively, indemnification according to the criteria of the amount it recognized to cost hotel accommodation per night, without the need to prove that an additional room had been booked. This is in contrast to punitive compensation since the "knowingly" component is not met, when it is not a hotel that the defendant provided. Had it been a hotel that the defendant provided, punitive compensation could have been awarded. Thus, in a case where three passengers testified that they were required to share a double bed with another passenger, it was ruled that "in their case, I am of the opinion that when such a (quite serious, in the context at hand) was raised, and to the extent that this was not done knowingly, a concrete explanation was required by the defendants (together with appropriate references), how it occurred. Such an explanation was not provided, and therefore, it must be determined that against these plaintiffs, this was a violation that was committed knowingly" (see and compare: Cell 37570-04-22 above). In any event, I will admit that according to this line it can also be said in relation to hotels that turned out not to provide meals, but I do not believe that the case in question is similar to the evidence in terms of its severity as well, when there was no concrete explanation since it was not reported in real time, when according to its lists meals were provided and therefore she asked why they did not contact in this matter in Israel as well, and although it is also possible to understand why it was not reported during the period of time that there were no employees in Israel and there was chaos at the airport. The defendant could not have examined the matter when she herself proved that she had booked hotels with meals that she pays for the same accommodation (another question is whether she should book for three meals or only two and then this is a violation, when it is not known whether the hotels provide three meals at all and it is not expected that she will continue to locate hotels that provide only three meals or two meals in a place where it is a hotel that provides only one meal, In any case, she will be reimbursed for the rest of the meals). However, as to the matter of sharing accommodation in a double bed with the child, it emerged that two rooms were provided while there was another passenger who did not sue, namely the husband, and the plaintiff, Mrs. Galit Rav Zeckler (plaintiffs 6-8), chose to stay in one room with her son and sleep with him.
Again, I was persuaded that El Al had offered passengers who did not want to wait for rooms to be located on its own initiative, that they would find a hotel independently, and that they would be entitled to a refund of up to $250 per night per person. This solution does indeed raise the difficulty of a place where there are travelers who cannot afford to afford independent accommodation on this occasion, especially when the accommodation was not planned as part of the trip but was forced following the cancellation of the flight, and when this was imposed from moment to moment and the costs are more expensive, when it is New York City, but it was not presented that the cost of $250 per person per night was not possible to achieve or because it refused to repay where the cost was higher (it is clear that this depends on the location and availability of rooms) and it appears that according to most of the testimonies, it did not prevent the possibility of waiting until they were found, even though this involved many hours of waiting. I was under the impression from Mr. Radomsky's testimony that an attempt was made on her part to locate rooms, even if bit by bit, when there were not enough rooms for all the passengers (p. 179, Q, 6-8) and this does not mean that they stopped searching. According to him, she worked to get more rooms at JFK, some of which were housed in the Bella Guardia Hotel, which is a relatively secluded hotel. I will note, in response to the plaintiffs, that an attempt was made to continue to provide and that they did not know whether they would succeed or not, and therefore the possibility of leaving the place and locating independently and receiving a refund later was offered - and therefore this does not negate the provision of assistance.