Summary of the parties' arguments
- The appellants filed an appeal against the partial judgment, and after the full judgment was rendered, they filed supplementary arguments for the appeal. The appellants' arguments relate both to the applicability of the Model Compensation Law, to the recognition of respondents 3-5 as indirect victims, and to the amount of compensation awarded to them.
Exemplary Compensation Law: The appellants argue at the outset that the law contradicts the law of torts, while prescribing punitive damages "which have no parallel in Israeli law", and raises practical difficulties in its application. On the merits of the matter, the appellants insist that this Court held in the Anonymous Because the PA cannot be obligated to pay punitive compensation for the act of terrorism that is the subject of this proceeding, and therefore there is a court action so that it is not possible to award exemplary damages by virtue of the law, and according to them, the claim depends only on the quantification of the medical compensation. It was further argued that the appellants were not given the right of argument regarding the applicability of the presumption set forth in section 2(e) of the Law; that the law is applied retroactively in contravention of the law and without giving them the opportunity to contradict its applicability; and that the appellants are able to prove that in view of the legislative changes in the PA, the remuneration policy for which the appellants' liability was determined was cancelled and a different payment mechanism was established in its place. The appellants further argue that the language of section 2(b) of the law does not entitle an indirect injured party to exemplary compensation, since he was not "injured by the act of terrorism", and this is a limitless expansion of the applicability of the law. At a minimum, the appellants request that the amount of compensation be intervened and that the law defines a maximum amount that can be reduced according to the level of involvement or fault of the appellants in the specific incident and in accordance with the level of disability of the injured party. The appellants argue that the interpretation given to the law renders no point in a legal hearing and will lead to their economic collapse.