The state even disputes the amount of damage claimed by the plaintiff.
The defendant's main arguments
- According to the defendant, he should not be held responsible, since at the time of the incident he felt threatened by the plaintiff's behavior; This is a dangerous compound with a history of riots, stabbings, drunk drivers and women engaged in prostitution; The plaintiff was a drunk who interfered with the defendant in the performance of his duties, confronted him verbally and physically, blocked his way out of the patrol car;
Even after the defendant informed him that he was under arrest, the plaintiff continued to rage and a number of police officers were required to control him; The plaintiff was the one who attacked the defendant, blocked his exit from the patrol car and approached him in a threatening manner; The plaintiff loudly chewed gum near the defendant's ear; The plaintiff chose of his own free will to confront and provoke the defendant; The defendant acted as required of him as a police officer who must fulfill his duty and at the same time protect himself and avoid becoming a victim, taking into account the danger of the compound and the sensitivity of the area in light of the many events that took place there.
The defendant should not be held liable for defamation, since it has not been proven that the plaintiff's friends were nearby and heard the defendant's words when he said to the plaintiff: "Why do you chew gum like a cow?"; even if this is said, it is a trivial matter.
- The defendant continues to claim that he acted in the framework of the performance of his duties in accordance with the instructions given to him by his superiors, and therefore the State, as his employer, bears vicarious liability for his actions, to the extent that such liability exists.
The defendant even disputes the amount of damage claimed by the plaintiff.
Discussion and Decision
Circumstances of the incident
- After considering the arguments of the parties and the totality of the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff has proven his version as to the circumstances of the accident beyond the balance of probabilities.
- On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself and two other witnesses testified: Fadi Damiri and Ali Badran, who were traveling with the plaintiff at the time of the incident.
In his affidavit, the plaintiff described the circumstances of the incident. Among other things, the plaintiff stated in his affidavit that on the day of the incident, he traveled with his friends Ali Badran, Fadi Damiri and Anas Farhat, to Ein Gedi in the Dead Sea; He sat with Ali in the back seat, Anas was driving the car and Fadi was sitting next to him; They stopped at the Almog Junction at 11:30 P.M.; Immediately after they parked the car, the defendant approached them and asked why they were not wearing seatbelts; The defendant checked their identification documents; He then insisted on registering them even though they were wearing seatbelts before they stopped the car; At a certain point, it was agreed that the defendant would give them one report for not tying a belt; The police officers who were at the scene searched the vehicle; The defendant sat in the patrol car and began to write the report; The window of the patrol car was partially open.