In addition, the fact that the mobile phone fell out of the defendant's pocket while driving on the first controller and he stopped and asked the plaintiff, "Is everything okay?", according to his version, also testifies to the fact that a significant event took place.
Although the defendant claimed that he drove along the road at a speed of about 30 kilometers per hour, he did not claim that prior to the passage, there was a sign instructing him to slow down, or that he actually slowed down his speed.
The video filmed by the defendant for the purpose of illustrating the incident was filmed at a very slow speed, and it can be seen that even at this speed, driving on the cattle barrier causes a slight jump, which the defendant called "trembling", while adding on his own initiative that when riding a motorcycle "the vibrations are stronger". The fact that the video was filmed in a way that was intended to portray the incident with less intensity also contributes to the plaintiff's preference for the plaintiff's version.
- The plaintiff sat behind the defendant, and from the testimony of the prosecution expert, I was convinced that the incident physically affected the plaintiff to a greater extent than it had on the defendant, who was unable to see and discern whether the plaintiff's body had indeed jumped in the air while driving, and therefore he cannot rule it out. At the same time, the plaintiff did not prove that the jump in the air was tens of centimeters high, when in the first place it was the plaintiff's estimate, regarding the event that took place for a few seconds, and when it is not clear how she could have estimated the height of the jump in the air. Therefore, it is sufficient to determine that while driving on the cattle crossing, a significant event occurred during which the plaintiff's body lifted up and landed on the back seat. The question of whether this is sufficient, i.e., the question of the causal connection between this event and the medical defects and disability caused to the plaintiff, will be examined according to the circumstances, according to the medical documentation and according to the expert opinion of the court.
The sequence of events after the incident
- The plaintiff claimed that following the incident and after the drive on the first cattle crossing, she already felt severe pain, as a result of which she found it difficult to continue the trip as planned, and therefore after a short time she asked to return to the defendant's home, where she tried to relieve her pain. The plaintiff claimed that she continued to suffer from pain all the time and had difficulty falling asleep, and the next day the defendant drove her to the train station in a private car that he borrowed from a friend.
The defendant claims that the plaintiff did not complain of pain, but rather conducted herself as usual, and the two continued the trip as planned, and even walked on a route that was defined as a hiking trail for hikers. The defendant further claims that the next morning he drove the plaintiff on the motorcycle, and that he borrowed a car from a friend in advance and regardless of the plaintiff's condition.
- From looking at the photographs taken shortly after the incident after the parties arrived at the observatory, the plaintiff can be seen standing and smiling, but it is not possible to draw a conclusion regarding her condition on the basis of these photographs, and they do not rule out the possibility that her back was injured. Although the plaintiff testified that she already felt pain at this stage and subsequently asked to shorten the trip, she also testified that the pain increased in the following days, so that immediately after the incident she was still not in a state of dysfunction.
A view of the reconstruction video filmed by the plaintiff, which also shows the walking route on which the parties walked after the trip, shows that this is a relatively short hike, on a road that is partly paved and partly includes a passage on rocky ground, but I was not under the impression that it was a difficult route to walk. In this regard, it should be noted that the defendant carried out the reconstruction of the hiking route while using crutches due to the limitations from which he currently suffers, and even this is sufficient to testify that this is not a strenuous walk. The plaintiff does not claim that she suffered an injury that prevented her from walking, but rather a blunt injury, the effect of which worsened over several days. Therefore, the fact that she was able to walk a short route does not raise or lower the reasonableness of the claim, and it does not contribute to the decision.