In view of the neurology expert's determination that medical cannabis treatment is warranted, and after the plaintiff has shown that she actually uses cannabis and according to a license, there is justification for awarding compensation for this expense, but on a limited scale, which reflects the fact that only a small part of the need for cannabis use can be attributed to the disability from the accident. Therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation in the future by way of an estimate, in the sum of ILS 20,000.
Non-pecuniary damage
- The plaintiff claims that she should be compensated with this component according to a medical disability of 26%.
The defendants claim that the medical disability that must be determined in the plaintiff's case is 2.5%.
- As I determined above, the plaintiff's weighted rate of medical disability due to the accident is 15.5%, and according to this rate, the compensation for pain and suffering must be calculated.
- According to the weighted rate of medical disability of 15.5%, and in accordance with Regulation 2(a) of the Road Accident Victims Compensation Regulations (Calculation of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage), 5736-1976, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage is ILS 34,276.
The Parties' Claims for Expenses Award
- In their summaries, the parties included arguments regarding the award of the costs of the proceeding, including the expenses incurred for the purpose of discussing the question of the circumstances of the incident and proving liability, including the fees of the experts in the investigation of accidents and other expenses.
- It seems to me that the breadth of the scope devoted to the discussion of the issues raised in the course of the proceeding, the fact that the question of liability and the determination of the causal connection and the definition of the event as a road accident were decided according to a balance of probabilities, as well as the determinations regarding the reliability of the parties, attest to the fact that there is no justification for charging any of the parties with an additional costs award. Both sides raised arguments and disputes, sometimes unnecessarily, thus contributing to the need to conduct a lengthy and complex proceeding.
Even though the need to obtain expert opinions in the investigation of accidents and the difficulty in discussing them and contributing them to the hearing stemmed to a certain extent from the passage of time and the plaintiff's conduct, therefore, even though her claim was found to be justified, I do not see fit to award reimbursement in her favor for the expenses of the expert's fees on her behalf.