The Damages
Loss of earnings
- Prior to the assault, the plaintiff was working, according to him, as an independent glazier. In his affidavit, he noted that prior to the incident, "A successful business owner, who lives a life of well-being, owns two cars, a spacious apartment, is rich in friends, and is used to spending time and going on trips[...]" (Section 55 A/3). Following the incident, he was forced to close his business, his financial situation deteriorated, and he became a"A poor person, without a livelihood, without employment [...]" (ibid.).
- The plaintiff referred to the invoices he issued in the business, the checks he received from his customers, the savings plans he held, and the testimony of witnesses who testified that the plaintiff's business was a prosperous business (see, for example, the testimony of Eliezer Yitzhak P/5, the testimony of the plaintiff's sister P/4).
- However, it turns out that most of the evidence relates to the period until 1999, i.e., many years before the attack incident. The receipts and invoices from the business "Rose Glazers", where the plaintiff's business was located, which were presented and marked N/11, were issued by the plaintiff until 1999. Later receipts presented are blank, without any details or amounts. The plaintiff did not know how to give an explanation for this.
- It also turned out that in the periodic reports submitted by the plaintiff to the VAT Administration, he reported transactions of very low amounts. Thus, for example, in the report for the month of 02/2002, the transactions are ILS 7,448; In the report for the month 04/2002 the transactions are in the sum of ILS 9,476 and in the report for the month of 06/2002 the transactions are ILS 9,124 and in the 08/2002 report the transactions are ILS 9,596. After deducting the input tax, it became clear that in the months of 04/2002 and 08/2002 the plaintiff received a tax refund. After 08/2002, the plaintiff did not submit any periodic report (P/17). The plaintiff replied in his interrogation that this was a mistake on the part of the accountant, but that he was not summoned to testify and no explanation was given as to the nature of the "mistake".
- The plaintiff did not submit reports to the tax assessor on his income in the years 1997-2002 (p. 37). The plaintiff repeatedly claimed that this was a mistake on the part of the accountant, but in this matter as well, he did not present any evidence and did not summon the accountant.
In the reports he submitted to the National Insurance Institute (P/18), the plaintiff declared an annual taxable income in 2002 of only approximately ILS 21,358, i.e., less than ILS 2,000 per month. The plaintiff had no explanation for this figure either.
- The plaintiff's claim that he was living comfortably before the incident is also inconsistent with the evidence. The plaintiff lived in a rented apartment and did not pay the rent on an ongoing basis until an eviction order was issued against him. A number of execution cases were opened against the plaintiff in respect of debts to various creditors (P/5). The plaintiff did not hold a valid driver's license (P/8) and did not present any evidence of the vehicles he owned (see the testimony of his wife at pp. 40-41). There is also no evidence of employing employees in the business.
- From all of this, it can be determined that the plaintiff's claim that he was self-employed at the time of the assault and earned a good living from the glazing business, is not anchored in the evidence. On the contrary, it turns out that prior to the incident, the plaintiff worked only partially, and his income was meagre, if any. There is no basis for calculating the plaintiff's wage losses.
- It should also be noted that after the assault incident, it was found that the plaintiff suffers from many disabilities for which he was determined by the National Insurance Institute to have a disability of 48% together Regulation 15 In total, 67%. Some of the general disability is not related to the assault incident.
In these circumstances, it appears that the main damage to the plaintiff's earning capacity stems from his general health condition and not from the injuries he sustained in the assault incident. It should also be mentioned that after the incident, the plaintiff was also hospitalized in the psychiatric ward at Mizra Hospital, and among other things, it was found that he was an impostor (P/12).