"In order for a road accident to take place in the sense of the law, in order for there to be a connection between the use of the vehicle and the bodily harm, it is necessary that this connection be attributed and stem from a specific event during the use. This event does not have to be violent, it does not have to be exceptional. It can manifest itself in a variety of ways, both in its circumstances and in the ways in which it causes. However, it is always necessary that there be an "event", which can be identified and diagnosed, separately from the course of events before and after it, that links the specific use and something that happened while using the vehicle, and the physical damage. Thus, the jumping of the vehicle over a bump and an elevation on the road, which shakes a passenger suffering from back pain, and leads to bodily harm (such as an actual outbreak of back pain, which may be considered a physical injury, even if mild and short-term), is, in my opinion, a road accident (T.A. (Shalom Acre) 4338/89 Rosette Haddad v. Hasna, Zeltner, p. 178 E). Whereas, much more serious damage to the driver's back, the result of continuous and cumulative micro-traumas over the years, due to many hours of driving... Without a connection between this damage and a specific event that occurred during the use of the vehicle, it will not constitute grounds for awarding compensation under the Compensation Law...
I agree with the Honorable Justice D. Katzir says: 'The 'event' to which the definition of the term 'road accident' applies, is not necessarily an event that has external signs such as collision or injury to an object or the body of another, it is sufficient for that event that will result from the use of a motor vehicle...'"
Having accepted the plaintiff's version that during the particular jump during the trip she suffered a painful blow, following which objective imaging findings appeared for the first time demonstrating the damage caused to her; and in light of the testimony of the orthopedic expert who expressed his opinion that the doubts raised by the defendants that the damage was due to a previous massage or fall were unreasonable; I am of the opinion that this is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff met the burden of proof imposed on her, Even if it has not been able to prove to the fullest extent the physical facts and mechanics of the event (see also the judgment inT.A. (Rishon LeZion 69623-06-23 Anonymous v. Wishor Insurance Company in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (June 24, 2025), in which a bus driver's claim for injury caused to him as a result of driving on a slowing down bump ("bamper") was discussed and accepted, when the incident was not mentioned in the initial medical documentation, and the documentation included reporting on a number of different events, without the ability to point to the specific bump that caused the accident).
- In summary, the "mosaic of evidence" - all the testimonies and evidence presented during the hearing - leads to the conclusion that the main points of the plaintiff's version should be accepted as a factual finding regarding the jumping incident while riding a motorcycle on the cattle crossing. Once the causal connection to the injury and damage caused to the plaintiff has been proven, to the extent required, the incident meets the definition of a "road accident" as determined by law.
Interim Summary - The Issue of Liability
- At the end of the proceeding, the plaintiff proved her claim with the balance of probabilities required in a civil trial. Even if the exaggeration in the theory remains, Luz's version remains firm, and the doubts raised by the defendants do not tip the scales.
The plaintiff's version was found to be reliable and preferable to the defendant's version as presented in the course of the proceeding. It is supported by the testimonies of the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff as well as by the testimonies of the experts in accident investigations, if only to a certain extent. From the investigations of the medical experts, the balance of probabilities also proved the causal connection between the travel incident and the injury and damage caused to the plaintiff. Against the background of these factual findings, and in the absence of a legal dispute, it was determined that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff.
- The defendant was the owner and driver of the motorcycle, and there is no dispute that at the time of the ride together with the plaintiff, he did not have valid insurance. In the framework of the statement of defense in the notice to the third party and in the framework of the summaries on its behalf, the third party did not raise any claim regarding the right of the informant against him, and all of his arguments related only to the plaintiff's claim.
Therefore, and after it was determined that this was a road accident, in accordance with the provisions of section 12(a)(2) of the Compensation Law, in the absence of the possibility of claiming compensation from an insurer, the claim against defendant 2, Karnit, should be accepted. In the absence of a defense argument on the part of the defendant regarding the lack of insurance coverage, and once his liability for the accident has been determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 9(a) of the Compensation Law, the notice to a third party must be accepted.
- Since I have determined that the existence of a road accident has been proven and the liability of the defendants and the third party has been proven, I will turn to the determination of the plaintiff's medical and functional condition and the determination of the extent of her damages.
The Injury and Medical Disability
- As detailed above in the review of the medical documentation in the plaintiff's case after the accident, the imaging findings indicated that she suffered an injury to her lower back and lumbar spine, as demonstrated by a CT scan of June 13, 2018, in which a general disc protrusion was diagnosed that causes pressure on the sac in the L4-L5 vertebrae, as well as a precentral hernia in the L5 S1 vertebrae on the left, which causes moderate-severe pressure on the sac and the S1 root on the left, and moderate foraminal narrowing on the left.
The plaintiff attached to her evidence medical documentation indicating that she was under continuous medical follow-up, during which she again complained of significant pain in her lower back, radiating to her left leg, from which she suffers mainly after exertion. In an attempt to improve her condition, the plaintiff underwent physiotherapy treatments as well as complementary medicine treatments within the framework of a health fund, which included chiropractic, massages, acupuncture and reflexology, without significant improvement. The medical documentation shows that in addition to the lower back pain, the plaintiff also suffers from limitations, degenerative changes, disc stenosis and cervical discopathy, which cause pain that requires treatment, regardless of the accident.