In addition, the defense expert testified that his conclusion that there could not have been a jump was based, inter alia, on the assumption that the driver slowed down before the crossing, but the defendant himself did not claim that he slowed down his speed toward the crossing, but only claimed that he drove at a low speed that corresponded to the road conditions.
- What emerges from the compilation: the two opinions did not provide empirical data and calculations that prove the parties' positions from a physical point of view. The expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution supported the plaintiff's version to some extent, and explanations were given as to the effect of the incident on her body and the mechanism of the sabotage, which were not contradicted by the defense expert. On the other hand, the defense expert's position was difficult stemming from the fact that he based his conclusions on controversial data, and in the course of his testimony he made a partial retraction of some of the determinations in the opinion.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that when juxtaposing the opinion and the expert testimonies against each other, it is possible to prefer the opinion of the prosecution expert, along with the fact that its overall contribution has limited weight, and depends on the decision regarding the acceptance of the plaintiff's version.
Interim Summary Regarding the Parties' Versions and the Expert Testimonies
- After examining the parties' testimonies and the opinions on their behalf, I am of the opinion that the conclusion is strengthened that during the parties' drive on the cattle crossing, an incident occurred during which the plaintiff's body rose and landed on the back seat of the motorcycle.
- The expert on behalf of the defense was willing to admit that there may have been a jump, even if it was considerably slighter than the plaintiff's description.
The defendant used the term "jumping at a cattle checkpoint on the road" in the correspondence between the parties even after the plaintiff contacted him with a demand for insurance details and after consulting with a lawyer, and I do not accept his claim that he repeated the term used by the plaintiff. This argument is inconsistent with the wording of the correspondence and with the defendant's attempts to refute the plaintiff's claims at the time, knowing that at the time of the incident he did not have insurance coverage. I am of the opinion that this version should be preferred, as the first version that was given spontaneously, and the fact that it was said after the defendant consulted with a lawyer strengthens its truthfulness. Only after the defendant faced a lawsuit against him personally did he claim that it was only a tremor. The fact that the defendant sought to avoid answering a question addressed to him on this subject in the framework of a questionnaire on behalf of the plaintiff strengthens the conclusion that there was indeed a jump of the motorcycle.