From the plaintiff's testimony I got the impression that there is a certain degree of glorification of the circumstances of the incident, but this does not detract from the conclusion that this was a significant event that constituted the cause of the injury. Already at an early stage, the day after the incident, the plaintiff told the neighbor that she had suffered an injury as a result of riding a motorcycle, as she claimed and described repeatedly in the subsequent medical documentation, as well as in her affidavit and testimony, in a uniform and consistent manner. The explanations of the prosecution expert regarding the manner in which the motorcycle's brakes work and the forces applied when the motorcycle body jumps support the description of the plaintiff's subjective experience that her body rose to a considerable height, and also relate to the different manner in which the incident was experienced by the defendant who was driving and driving in front.
- As stated, the defendant's first version when the plaintiff approached him was that there was a jump while driving on the cattle crossing. Therefore, the defendants' argument that they wish to cast their faith in the plaintiff's initial medical records is inconsistent with the attempt to ignore the version given by the defendant in the WhatsApp correspondence. Contrary to the medical documentation recorded by the treating party when the plaintiff was writhing in pain at the emergency center, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff in his own words, and formulated his words as a clear and explicit argument, in his free time and after consulting with a lawyer. Therefore, significant weight should be attributed to his words. The defendant tried to claim that at this stage he was not yet aware of the fact that he did not have valid insurance, but this claim is contradicted by the fact that he attached to that correspondence a mandatory insurance certificate that was not valid at the time of the incident. Moreover, if the defendant believed that he had valid insurance, it is not clear why he bothered to consult with a lawyer - whose name he now claims he does not remember; It is also unclear why he tried to speak to the plaintiff's heart and dissuade her from filing a lawsuit, and even noted that "a negative attitude will not yield good...", in a way that the plaintiff claims sounds bordering on threat. The fact that the defendant sought to clarify with the plaintiff already in the course of the correspondence what details she provided in the initial medical documentation indicates that he was well briefed and knew that every detail and every word was important. Therefore, the fact that the defendant admitted that there was a jump, even though he denied the causal connection, is weighty and strengthens the plaintiff's version and its reliability.
Just as I was under the impression that the plaintiff tried to glorify the circumstances of the incident, so I got the impression that the defendant tried to minimize them. Thus, the defendant's attempt to claim in the course of the proceeding that there was no jump and that it was a slight "tremor" or mere "vibration", and even to evade a factual description of the circumstances of the event at the heart of the dispute in his affidavit and in response to the questionnaire, undermines his credibility. Similarly, the reenactment video filmed by the defendant, which was filmed at a very slow speed and was initially transmitted without audio, testifies to an attempt to present the circumstances of the incident in a tendentious manner, which also detracts from the defendant's credibility.
- Therefore, despite the difficulty that arises from the initial medical documentation and despite the impression that the circumstances of the incident and the damage were glorified on the part of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that her version is more reliable and probable than the defendant's version that no accident occurred. In these circumstances, I do not accept the defendants' argument that the plaintiff's version should be rejected.
According to the precedent established in Other Municipality Applications 765/18 Shmuel Hayoun v. Elad Hayoun [published in Nevo] (May 1, 2019) (hereinafter: the Hayoun Rule), the correct remedy against giving false testimony on a material matter, which is given knowingly and with the intention of misleading the outcome of the trial, is to render a judgment in favor of the liar.