The opinion does not refer to the speed of the motorcycle and the potential of the speed in relation to the volume of the engine, nor does it relate to the fact that the road is flat or sloping, the weight of the parties' bodies or other physical data.
- On behalf of the defendant, the opinion of Mr. Yitzhak Liran was submitted, who also visited the scene of the incident on August 2, 2024, together with the defendant and afterwards together with the plaintiff. The expert described the passage of the controller and expressed his opinion that due to the fact that it is built as a straight level, driving on it cannot create a jump but at most a slight vibration created due to the gaps between the metal beams, as opposed to passing on a speed bump that creates a jump of the vehicle.
The expert attached to the opinion a photograph of the plaintiff indicating the location where the parties crossed the crossing, along with a marking on the photograph, which indicates that the crossing was made in the third of the width on the right, but noted that the plaintiff stated that the ride was in the center of the crossing. The expert, Mr. Liran, also took measurements of the field data, and reached results similar to those of the prosecution expert. As for the height of the step created due to the height difference between the asphalt and the metal frame, the expert noted that the height of the step on the right side is 10 cm, which is decreasing to the left to a height of 1 cm, which is the height of the step in the center of the passageway. Therefore, an expert determined that at the place where the ride was made, there is a height difference of 1 cm, which cannot create a jump, even compared to a standard speed bump with a height of 7 cm, which produces an element of jumping.
With regard to the prosecution's opinion, Mr. Liran noted that it did not refer to the fact that the ride was on a sharp increase, which slows down the speed of the motorcycle, when it comes to an engine volume of 125 cc, which cannot develop a high speed that caused the jump, and given the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are heavy in body and weight. Mr. Liran rejected the claim that a 40 cm jump was caused in the air, and noted that if such a jump had occurred, the plaintiff would have fallen onto the road, or her landing would have caused shock and loss of control of the motorcycle. Mr. Liran did not specify the basis for his determinations and did not make engineering calculations, but rather gave his opinion on the basis of a general estimate, but at the same time claimed that the expert on behalf of the prosecution did not base his determinations on empirical data.
- During his interrogation, the expert on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Asban, testified that according to his opinion and the measurements he made, the difference in levels at the relevant location was at least 3 cm, but added that there was also a horizontal gap between the asphalt road and the metal frame, as illustrated in the photograph in the opinion. Later, the expert clarified that in various parts of the cattle barrier there were significant height differences, and that it can be assumed that the facility does not "sit" on the road as required. The expert testified that when he visited the site with the plaintiff, she stated that the ride was in the middle of the road "plus minus" and that she was unable to point to a specific point.
As to the mechanism of the incident itself, the expert clarified that the motorcycle did not fly in the air, but rather that its body lifted up, and thus the jump was caused [Proc. lines 21-30 at p. 52]: