Although in this case we have before us the parties' versions of the incident, there is some ambiguity regarding some of the circumstances, since the plaintiff is only able to testify to the jump and the blow she felt as a result of it, and she is unable to prove the height to which her body rose from the seat and the strength of the physical forces that acted as a result of the jump. As detailed above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff met the burden imposed on her to prove that there was a jump during the trip that caused the injury. Her testimony was found to be credible, and it is supported by the defendant's own initial (and preferable) version; both in the testimony of the neighbor to whom she told about the incident close to real time, and in the testimony of the plaintiff's mother; both in the medical documentation after the accident (except for the first documentation); in the testimonies of accident investigators; The causal connection to the damage was also determined according to the position of the court-appointed orthopedic expert, who determined that the more likely possibility was that the damage was caused as a result of the jump during the trip. When the plaintiff has met the burden of proving her version regarding the circumstances of the accident and the causal connection, even if this proof is on the balance of probabilities and not above any reasonable doubt - which is not required, then according to the model described, the defendants must prove their claims that the damage was caused to the plaintiff in various circumstances.
In other words, once the plaintiff has proven her claims to the extent required in a civil trial, she does not have the burden of clearing the picture of the incident of any possible ambiguity or doubt, and the claimant of the existence of other circumstances that caused the damage has the burden of proving them.
In this regard, the words of the Tel Aviv District Court are beautiful and applicable. (Jerusalem) 1730-12-11 Estate of the late Someone v. Eliyahu Insurance Company in Tax Appeal [Published in Nevo] (May 11, 2017):