The plaintiff again demanded the insurance details, and the defendant replied to her the next day, October 22, 2018:
"A question with your permission (to help - I swear), and please try to put emotions aside... Do your medical documents show the exact date of the blow you received? Or just a statement of "X days/weeks ago she received a blow..."?
The defendant then asked to have a conversation with the plaintiff, and after she again demanded the insurance details, he replied to her: "A negative attitude will not yield good...". Later in the correspondence on that day, a copy of the mandatory certificate with an expiration date of April 9, 2018, 10 days before the event was attached.
The defendant replied in cross-examination that he had used the term "jump" due to the fact that this was the plaintiff's claim in a preliminary conversation, and that he had not clarified that it was a jump only according to her claim, due to the fact that he was not a lawyer. However, later in his testimony, the defendant noted that when the plaintiff called him about six months after the incident, he hurried to consult with a friend who is a lawyer, whose name he said he did not remember, and following the consultation, he used the term "causal connection", as he replied to the plaintiff in the WhatsApp correspondence [Prov. at p. 111].
- From the parties' versions, it can be seen that the correct description of the circumstances of the incident is in between. In fact, the dispute between the parties is a matter of size and intensity, since both parties agree that the motorcycle has moved while driving on the cattle crossing. On the one hand, it appears that the plaintiff is exaggerating in theory the height differences that caused the motorcycle to jump and the height of the jump to which her body rose when it detached from the seat, and with it the force of the blow it received when it landed back. It is also not clear how the plaintiff can estimate and estimate in centimeters the height of the sudden jump that occurred within a few seconds. At the same time, the plaintiff reiterated that this was a significant jump, when her body rose from the seat and the height of her head increased significantly from the height of the plaintiff's helmet that rode in front of her. On the other hand, it can be assumed that the defendant wishes to downplay the intensity of the incident, and to avoid the fact that there was in fact a jump of the motorcycle, as he admitted at the first stage in the WhatsApp message, after consulting with a lawyer. In addition, the defendant's claim regarding the slight "vibration" or "tremor" caused during the ride does not explain why the telephone fell from the defendant's shirt pocket precisely during the first drive on the first controller crossing, and why he stopped and asked the plaintiff whether "everything is fine?".
Similarly, the fact that the defendant chose to film a reenactment of the course of the ride under various conditions, and in particular, at a speed significantly lower than the speed at which he admitted to driving at the time of the incident, testifies that it was not just a tremor, and that the defendant noted on his own initiative that when passing a motorcycle, "the vibrations are a little stronger". Therefore, there is considerable difficulty in relying on what is being watched in a video that was filmed under different conditions and in a tendentious manner intended to show less intensity. The evidentiary value of the video is in any case low, since even according to the defendant, the tremor observed in it should have been stronger if it had been a motorcycle, and if the speed of reaching the obstacle had been higher, as it was in practice.