"A look at the overall mosaic shows us that the defendant has succeeded at most in posing various question marks, which, even if there is no definitive answer in connection with them, does not negate the plaintiffs' compliance with what is required of them and the result derived from it.
Even in criminal trials, question marks of the kind presented by the defendant do not prevent a conviction...
Indeed, even in criminal trials, where a decision is required beyond a reasonable doubt, the court is not required to 'decide what the scenario really and with absolute certainty is,' but only because the scenario claimed by the prosecution is 'the only logical scenario and that there is no reasonable scenario without it.'"
- The defendants seek to suffice with casting doubt on the plaintiff's version, but they have not proven that the damage was caused by any other reason, such as a massage, a fall on the buttocks in the past, or the claim that the trip was full of bumps. Contrary to the defendants' claim, the plaintiff proved convincingly that while driving on the cattle crossing, a distinct jumping event occurred, which also caused the defendant's phone to fall out of the defendant's shirt pocket and he stopped the ride and asked the plaintiff if "everything was fine" - according to his testimony as a litigant. In fact, there is no real dispute between the parties that while driving on the cattle preventer crossing, a certain event occurred, but rather the dispute relates to its scope, intensity and the possibility that it caused damage to the plaintiff.
The distinction between a road accident and an event resulting from a number of minor injuries caused by the accumulation is discussed in the TA. (Haifa) 943/91 Avishai v. Phoenix Insurance Company in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (December 31, 1991), where a claim by a driving instructor that he suffered a heart attack during a driving lesson was discussed. In that case, the plaintiff did not mention the details of the incident when he sought initial medical treatment, and the National Security Council did not recognize his claim as a work accident, and determined that the heart attack was caused to the plaintiff mainly against the background of his health condition, without an exceptional and unusual event constituting a defined accident. The court examined the legislative fabric, the purpose of the Compensation Law, and the definition of an accidental event, and held: