Although the plaintiff's mother testified that she first heard about the ride on the cattle crossing while she was with the plaintiff at the emergency center, no explanation was given for the fact that the facts were not reflected in the medical records.
The documentation shows that when seeking medical treatment, the plaintiff did not attribute the pain she suffered to the accident, contrary to her testimony that immediately after the incident she began to feel strong pain. The plaintiff claimed for the first time on the witness stand that she had a hematoma at the site of the injury, but this fact was not reflected in the medical documentation, nor was it mentioned to the court's experts.
It was further claimed that the plaintiff exaggerated the theory by claiming that she jumped in the air to a height of 25-40 centimeters, and also exaggerated the claim that the speed of travel was about 60 kilometers per hour, since in this situation the two riders were supposed to fly off the motorcycle due to the intensity of the incident.
The allegation of injury during the trip arose for the first time in late medical documentation and in a WhatsApp correspondence that the defendant received from the plaintiff about six months after the incident. In the plaintiff's attorney's letter to the defendant in a WhatsApp correspondence dated December 30, 2018, it was claimed that the plaintiff was "forcefully kicked off the motorcycle and was injured," in a manner that constitutes a factual description different from the plaintiff's claims, which can teach about her many versions. Similarly, a different version was given when the plaintiff contacted the police on December 7, 2018, where it was noted that the plaintiff's body had been detached in the air and landed on her buttocks hard, with only mild pain.
The plaintiff's lack of reliability is also expressed in the amendments to her claim, when in the framework of the evidence submitted on her behalf in the previous proceeding, she did not bother to point out the preventative passage of the cattle in which the alleged incident occurred, did not produce photographs from the field and did not attach an expert opinion on her behalf, but only after the submission of the evidence in the present proceeding, as an allocation of improvements that attest to an "evolving" version throughout the proceeding, which was conducted in a speculative manner. Artificial and baseless. All this, when the plaintiff knew very well from the first correspondence with the defendant that she would be required to prove the circumstances of the incident and the causal connection to her complaints.