Discussion and Decision
- As can be understood, the issue of the liability of defendants 2-3 for the plaintiff's damages does not require an in-depth discussion. Defendants 2-3 refrained from presenting evidence and refrained from submitting summaries of claims. Defendants 2-3 were indicted for assaulting the plaintiff, confessed to the charges against them and were convicted. In these circumstances, it should be determined that defendants 2-3 are responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused to him in the assault incident.
- The question of the state's responsibility is more complicated. As will be detailed below, I have reached the conclusion that the state should also be held responsible for the negligence and negligence of the police, who did not take reasonable measures to prevent the attack.
Before I examine the allegations, I will emphasize that imposing responsibility on the state for the negligence of the police officers at the Ma'ona station does not diminish the praise that the police officers receive for their behavior after the attack began, when they acted faithfully, with determination and risked themselves to protect the plaintiff with their bodies. This behavior of the policemen, who did not spare themselves, prevented more serious damage and more severe injuries to the plaintiff. However, the proper behavior of the police officers after the incident began does not reduce the negligence that led to the outbreak of the incident itself.
State Responsibility
- In order to substantiate the claim of state responsibility, we must clarify whether there is a duty of care, conceptual and concrete, between the state authorities and the Israel Police towards those who are lawfully detained, and whether the duty has been breached.
For many years, case law has held that the state, the Israel Prison Service and the police have a duty to take care of the physical and mental well-being and security of prisoners in custody (see: Civil Appeal 1892/95 Abu Sa'ada et al. v. Israel Police Prison Service, IsrSC 51(2) 704 (1997); Civil Appeal 8650/08 Rafalov v. State of Israel - Israel Prison Service [published in Nevo] (July 17, 2013)).