As to the vicarious liability of the State: According to Section 13 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version], an employer is liable for a tort committed by his employee during his work on behalf of the employer, including a prohibited act by the employee, if it can be viewed as improper performance of an action that he is authorized to perform. The case law indicates that there must be a "complete deviation" of the employee in order to detract from the vicarious liability of the state. Compare: Civil Appeal 8199/01 Estate of the late Ofer Miro v. Miro et al., IsrSC 57(2), 785; See also: Civil Appeal Authority 1389/98 Mazawi v. State of Israel [published in Nevo].
In our case, it cannot be said that the defendant's action completely deviated from the framework of the performance of his duties. The incident occurred during the defendant's regular work; It occurred while registering a traffic ticket, which constitutes a routine action in the performance of the defendant's duties.
The affidavits and testimonies of the defendant and the other police officers who testified on behalf of the state indicate that arguments and arguments between police officers and civilians are a routine phenomenon in the course of their duties.
Moreover. The fact that the defendant was ultimately prosecuted for disciplinary proceedings and not for criminal prosecution strengthens the conclusion that this is an improper performance of the job, and not a complete deviation from the scope of the job, since, as is well known, the disciplinary proceeding is intended to deal with inappropriate disciplinary violations in the employee's work. In these circumstances, it must be determined that the state bears vicarious liability for the defendant's conduct.
- In this context, I accept the State's argument that the mere imposition of vicarious liability on the State does not exempt the defendant from his personal liability. This arises from the provision of section 16 of the Torts Ordinance; See also Civil Appeal 7008/09 Adnan v. Municipality of Taybeh et al. [published in Nevo] (September 7, 2010), 25.
- As to the division of liability: In the circumstances of the case, since we have determined that the state bears vicarious liability for the defendant's conduct, and no direct liability was imposed on the state, there is no room to deal with the division of liability between the defendant and the state, and it must be determined that both bear responsibility towards the plaintiff, jointly and severally.
Compensation Rate