When the claim was renewed in the present proceeding, additional experts were appointed by the court, in the field of neurology and psychiatry.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)The court's expert in the field of orthopedics determined the plaintiff to have a weighted disability of 14.5%; the court's expert determined that the plaintiff had a disability of 30% due to hearing impairment, regardless of the event; the court's expert in the field of neurology determined that the plaintiff had a disability of 5%; the court's expert in the field of mental illness determined that the plaintiff had a disability of 8.5% in a causal connection to the event.
- As stated, the parties disagree as to the very classification of the incident of the cattle crossing as an accident that caused injury to the plaintiff, from a factual point of view. The plaintiff claims that this was a significant event that caused her real injury, which found its expression in causing medical disability; The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the plaintiff exaggerates her theory about the incident, that it was not an accidental event, and that there is no causal connection between the trip and the medical defects she claims.
In addition, the parties disagree as to the extent of the plaintiff's limitations and the functional impairment caused to her in a causal connection with the incident, and regarding the degree of disability resulting from the incident, against the background of the plaintiff's previous medical condition, as well as regarding the effect of the injury on her earning capacity.
- At the evidentiary hearing that took place in the case, the plaintiff and her mother testified, as well as a neighbor of the apartment at the time, with whom she was friendly, and on behalf of the defense, the defendant testified himself. In addition, experts in the investigation of road accidents testified on behalf of the parties, who visited the site together with the plaintiff and prepared an opinion regarding the conditions of the area and regarding the possibility of the accident. In addition, the three experts on behalf of the court were interrogated in the field of orthopedics, neurology and psychiatry.
After hearing the evidence, written summaries were submitted on behalf of the parties, with the parties expanding the scope beyond what is required, and the defendant's summaries significantly exceeded the quota of pages set in the order for submitting summaries.
- In light of the dispute, I will first discuss the issue of liability and then the issue of the extent of the damage.
Discussion and decision on the issue of liability and proof of the circumstances of the accident
- I will begin by saying that the decision regarding the classification of the incident of the ride on the cattle crossing as a "road accident" is based to a large extent on a decision between the plaintiff's and the defendant's versions regarding the intensity of the incident: was it a jump that caused the motorcycle seat to land with a painful blow that caused injury to the plaintiff, or was it a slight vibration during a routine trip, and nothing more. In this regard, a variety of arguments were raised on behalf of the defendants regarding the plaintiff's lack of credibility and regarding the lack of compatibility between what was claimed on her behalf in the course of the proceeding and the medical documentation shortly after the incident and other documents. It was further argued that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving her claim and the feasibility of the incident.
On the other hand, the plaintiff claims the defendant's lack of credibility, which is trying to reduce the severity of the incident due to the fact that he does not have insurance coverage.