Also Sections 10-11 For the Regulations Torts (Liability of Public Servants), 5766-2006 There is no distinction between a public authority employee and a civil servant. Thus, Regulation 11 states as follows:
Decision please
- (a) On the date set for the hearing, the declarants will appear for an interrogation of their affidavits, unless the court orders otherwise.
(b) The hearing of the application will be completed within one day; If the court deems it necessary, it may schedule additional days of hearings, as consecutively as possible, until the conclusion of the examination of the witnesses.
(c) The parties may submit to the court, up to seven days before the date set for the hearing, a list of legal references and written arguments; A summary of the parties' arguments will be oral on the day of the hearing of the application after the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence.
The Procedure The discussion is therefore uniform for both types of workers.
The Desired Procedural Trial: Clarifying the fulfillment of the conditions of immunity according to the rules of civil law leads to an undesirable result that the legislature sought to avoid. Inquiry by civil means constitutes a kind of trivial law for clarifying the employee's mental element ("intention to cause harm or with equanimity as to the possibility of causing it"), which also requires an examination of the existence of the factual elements of the act attributed to the public servant. This is liable to lead to a duplication of discussion, about the inefficiency and protractability of the proceedings involved, and contrary to the legislature's mandate to conduct judicial review and give a decision on the application Improvise. Moreover, there is also a difficulty in conducting an inquiry using the tools of civil law, even though the preliminary legal proceedings in the main case have not yet taken place.
The Desired Substantive Law: The trend of expanding the liability of the state and public authorities is reflected in the large number of tort claims filed against them (Chaya Zandberg "Torts Claims Against the Authority The executive is about the pendulum swing." The Attorney 52 591, 593 (2014)). Alongside the expansion of the responsibility of the state and public authorities, the legislature sought to protect the public servant, in order to prevent pressure and threats against him, and as a result, to enable the employee to fulfill his public role without fear and without fear of distortion in the exercise of his professional judgment. As part of the arrangement that was determined In Section 7A To the Ordinance The Torts, the legislature balanced the various considerations that are necessary for the matter. On the one hand, the immunity is procedural and not absolute, so that an employee who acted intentionally or with equanimity for the results of his actions, the immunity will not apply to him and the injured party will be allowed to be held accountable for his actions. On the other hand, the arrangement is intended to ensure that an employee who has fulfilled his duties faithfully will not find himself "exposed in the turret" to a tort claim.