Mr. Liran insisted on his determination that there is no possibility that the plaintiff jumped in the air to a height of 40 centimeters, but that there is a possibility that she jumped to a height of 2 or 3 centimeters [Prov. at pp. 85, 92].
When he was shown the video filmed by the defendant, he was willing to accept the claim that there had been a certain jump while driving on the cattle crossing, but he wanted to distinguish between a four-wheeled vehicle and a scooter [Prov. lines 13-30 at p. 87]:
"Q: Look at the pickup truck we saw a moment ago before defendant 1, the one in front of him, as he passes quite slowly over a cattle crossing, every time he passes it, his entire rear jumps.
A: Okay.
Q: Okay. How would you call it differently if not a jump on the back?
A: It's a jump of the rear, but it's a car on wheels, we're talking about a scooter that drove in the center.
Q: Thereafter, defendant 1 drives on the passage of the vehicle's P[r]Vent controller from the step,
A: That's right.
Q: And then his car shakes (unclearly) to iron plates and when he reaches the end of his front, he rises and he continues to drive.
A: Okay.
Q: Accurate description?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. We've seen two jumps right now of two different vehicles, what would you call it if not a jump?
A: It's a jump, but it's a four-wheeled vehicle, we're talking about a scooter that drove in the cattle prevention center, where there is no jump, where there is no incline."
Later, the expert was asked whether he had checked the vehicle's license in order to determine the characteristics of the motorcycle, and testified that he had not checked, but was told that it was an engine capacity of 125 cc, and based his determinations on this and assumed that the engine had 14 horsepower. When he was presented with the vehicle's license according to which the motorcycle had 12 horsepower, he testified that in the conditions of the terrain the motorcycle was capable of traveling at a speed between 40 and 50 km/h at most [Proc. p. 94].