As stated above, the plaintiff proved that the defendants should have included in the report of September 8, 2013 the up-to-date detail about the pores, but did not prove that as a result of the misleading detail, he suffered the damage claimed by him. The determination that the plaintiff did not prove the component of the damage and the causal connection between him and the misleading individual is also true in relation to the tort of negligence, which, as stated, imposes a heavier burden on the plaintiff. Hence, even his claim for compensation by virtue of this cause was not substantiated by the plaintiff.
- Has the claim of infringement of autonomy been proven?
- The plaintiff also raised a claim of infringement of autonomy (paragraph 54 of the statement of claim and paragraph 67 of the plaintiff's summaries). It was argued that due to the failure to disclose this material information, he was prevented from being able to make an informed decision regarding the investment in the securities, and if the information had been placed before him, he would have refrained from purchasing the shares and would not have suffered financial damage. I cannot accept this argument.
- Compensation for head damage of infringement of autonomy Other municipal requests have been recognized 2781/93 Da'aka v. Carmel Hospital, Haifa, IsrSC 55(4) 526 (1999) (hereinafter: The Da'aka Matter), and reflects the view that "the right of a person to write his own life story is one of the most fundamental rights in a democratic regime, if not the most fundamental of them."Civil Appeal 1535/13 State of Israel v. Ibi, paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice (as described at the time) A. Hayut [Nevo] (September 3, 2015)). At the same time, and as has been emphasized more than once, in order for an infringement of autonomy to receive compensation, it must be one that has led to a violation of the core of the right to vote, or in other words, the "hard core" of the human right that sanctifies autonomy (Civil Appeal 1399/20 Anonymous v. Clalit Health Services, paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Honorable Vice-President v. Hendel [Nevo] (December 27, 2021); Civil Appeal Authority 1081/21 Anonymous v. Clalit Health Services, paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Amit [Nevo] (September 1, 2021); Civil Appeal 8037/06 Barzilai v. Prinir (Hadas 1987) Ltd., paragraph 44 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice H. Melcer (IsrSC 67(1) 410) (2014) (hereinafter: The Prinir Matter)).
In addition, in order for an infringement of autonomy to confer a right to compensation, it is not enough to infringe on the power of choice, and it must be proven that as a result of the infringement of autonomy, the plaintiff suffered Subjective, non-monetary consequential damage that is expressed in negative feelings such as anger, frustration, insult, disgust, shock, etc.Civil Appeal 4333/11 Salomon v. Guri Import and Distribution Ltd.paragraphs 24-25 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Amit [Nevo] (March 12, 2014)); Civil Appeal 887/19 Shmul v. Clalit Health Services, paragraph 84 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge H. Kabub (November 21, 2022); Civil Appeal 10085/08 Tnuva - Cooperative Center for Agricultural Products in Israel in a Tax Appeal vs. Estate of the Late Tawfik Rabi [Nevo] (December 4, 2011) (hereinafter: The Tnuva Matter)). It is required that these negative feelings be significant, and not marginal or weak (The Prinier Matter, Paragraph 44 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice H. Meltzer).