Of course, it was also possible to create a physical barrier/fence to separate the crowd from the detainees in the entrance courtyard. Even when it became clear that there was no separation and that the Cherbi family was in the yard, the meeting could have been prevented, either by returning to the building or by calling on additional police officers to carry out separation.
- None of this was done. A conversation developed between the Cherbi family and the plaintiff, at the end of which the defendants began beating the plaintiff and the policemen. Such a scenario was expected and the police should have taken steps to prevent it. The police did nothing to promote the possibility that a fight would break out between the plaintiff and the Cherby family. The procedures for accompanying the detainees at the station did not take into account the need to prevent meetings as they actually took place, and no separation was instituted, and no other measures were taken, as might have been expected.
- All of this necessitates the conclusion that the state, which is in charge of the police, is vicarious liable for the failure of those to protect the plaintiff while he was in their custody, a detainee at the station.
Therefore, the state must compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused to him in the assault incident.
- I will note that the state claimed that the criminal behavior of defendants 2-3 severed the causal link between the negligence of the police and the damage. This argument must be rejected, since we have seen that the possibility that defendants 2-3 would attack the plaintiff was foreseeable. The assumption that the plaintiff is being held by police officers is sufficient to prevent an assault is unreasonable. The police officers could and should have anticipated the attack, and therefore the conduct of defendants 2-3 does not sever the causal link.
The Damage
- The plaintiff claims in his lawsuit that as a result of the assault he was severely injured in his shoulders, limbs and back. He was also mentally harmed. Due to the aforementioned injuries, the plaintiff is unable to return to his work as a glazier and is deprived of any income. The plaintiff estimated his damages at a total of ILS 5,596,893.
As will be detailed below, the plaintiff's claims are exaggerated and are not anchored in the evidence presented.
- As stated, the plaintiff attached to his claim an opinion in the orthopedic field as well as an opinion in the mental field. Due to the discrepancy between the experts' findings, the court appointed Prof. Wolpin, an expert in the field of orthopedics, and Dr. Noa Keret, an expert in the field of psychiatry, as its experts.
The plaintiff did not ask to interrogate the psychiatric expert and agreed with her conclusion that due to the events of the assault, he suffered a mental disability of only 10%. On the other hand, the plaintiff seeks to persuade him that Prof. Wolpin's opinion should not be adopted and that the assessments of Dr. Falah Mazen, the expert on his behalf, should be preferred. The plaintiff also refers to the National Insurance Institute's determination, which estimated in the general disability claim that the claimant's disability is 67%.
- The state, for its part, supports the determinations of the court's experts and emphasizes their assessment that the plaintiff exaggerates and intensifies his injuries. The state further claims that a significant part of the plaintiff's complaints are not related to the assault incident.
As I will detail below, I do not believe that there is room to deviate from Prof. Wolpin's assessments.