Defamation
- As stated, the plaintiff seeks to base his claim on the tort of defamation as well, in light of the defendant's words to him, "Why do you chew gum like a cow?" According to the plaintiff, these words humiliated him in front of his friends.
As stated, the defendant denied the allegations and alternatively claimed that they were trivial.
- I am of the opinion that it has been proven beyond the balance of probabilities that the words were said to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff's version on this matter was supported by the testimony of the witnesses on his behalf, Fadi and Ali; The plaintiff and his witnesses were questioned about the matter in court and insisted on their version and even strengthened it.
Support for the plaintiff's statements and witnesses can also be found in the testimony of Officer Shako, who also stated in his affidavit and in his statement at the Department for the Investigation of Police that he heard the defendant say to the plaintiff: "What, are you a cow?" and that the plaintiff was offended by this sentence and said: "Why do you call me 'cow'?" (See: paragraph 15 of Officer Shako's affidavit, see also: Officer Shako's testimony during his interrogation at trial, p. 28, lines 15-16.)
- I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, these words of the defendant were intended to humiliate the plaintiff and make him a target of contempt and ridicule within the meaning of section 1 of the Law: Prohibition of Defamation, 5725-1965.
As stated, Officer Shako testified that he noticed that the plaintiff was offended by the defendant's words and even protested against these words, which strengthens the conclusion that the defendant's words constituted defamation.
The words were said to Officer Shako and the plaintiff's friends, who heard them and testified about them, and therefore this is a matter of defamatory publication within the meaning of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
The defendant did not claim or prove the existence of a defense from the protections mentioned in the Prohibition of Defamation Law, and thus it must be determined that the defendant committed a civil tort against the plaintiff regarding the publication of defamation.
- It is important to note that it is clear that the chain of defects in the defendant's behavior began with the defendant's statement to the plaintiff that he "chews gum like a cow." This statement hurt the plaintiff and caused him to protest it to the defendant. As stated, the defendant's conduct was characterized by the addition of "sin upon sin", to say the least; Instead of internalizing his first and unnecessary mistake, he continued his spoilage, severely attacked the plaintiff following his protest against his insulting remarks, and then even arrested the plaintiff without any justification.
The State's Responsibility
- As stated, the state argues that it should not be held directly or vicariously liable for the defendant's conduct.
According to her, the plaintiff did not claim or prove direct liability against her; In addition, in the circumstances of the case, she should not be held vicarious liable for the defendant's conduct, because the defendant's act of assault is not included in the scope of the role of police officers, was not carried out on behalf of the state, and was certainly not approved or ratified by the state, but rather the opposite. The state put the defendant on criminal trial for his actions in the incident, and in doing so, it condemned the act and brought justice to light.
- After considering the arguments of the parties, I have reached the following conclusions:
As to the direct liability of the state: Although the plaintiff raised a number of claims regarding the direct liability of the state in the statement of claim, in the summary of his arguments he abandoned these claims, and in any case did not prove them in the framework of the evidence presented in the case.