The conclusion of the defendant's employees was therefore erroneous, since the testimonies showed that the defendant refused to allow another passenger to board the ambulance because of his mistaken fear that the presence of additional patients might worsen his medical condition and not in connection with the plaintiff's clothing.
The circumstances of the incident and who is responsible
- The plaintiff reiterated in her testimony what was stated in the affidavit and her version was not corrected regarding the circumstances of the incident as detailed in the statement of claim and in the affidavit, that because she was wearing shorts and a tank top, the driver and manager on behalf of the defendant refused to put her in the transportation vehicle to the motel, claiming that the defendant objected to this because of her "exposed" dress.
- According to the defendant, the things that were said and the actions taken by the driver and the manager on her behalf were made due to a demand made by the defendant, but I have not found any basis for this claim. The defendant's employees acted in this way, attributing things to the defendant on the basis of his ultra-Orthodox appearance only, or in an erroneous interpretation of his general demand not to bring in additional passengers who were sick for the mere fear that this would worsen his medical condition, even though he himself was also a confirmed patient with COVID-19.
- Ohana Chen, the plaintiff, stated in her testimony before me that the conversation between her and the driver took place outside the ambulance, on the street: "I said I wasn't willing to stay there, and after I suggested things like covering myself with a garbage bag, or wearing a uniform like the ambulance driver's, and to that too I get 'if you're wearing exposed, you won't go up, unless you change your clothes.' After explaining many times in many ways that I don't have clothes anymore, because I moved there just two days before I got sick... So after I explain and give all these suggestions, agree with me that sitting covered in a garbage bag is not something that is appropriate, I still get 'if you are dressed exposed, this is what it is, don't go up', yes, it has reached shouting" (Transcript 3.4.24, p. 19, lines 14-24; p. 22, lines 4-8). The plaintiff added that most of the discourse and shouting took place in the telephone conversation with the defendant's manager and not in front of the driver. According to her, the conversation lasted about 15 minutes in front of passersby (p. 22, lines 17-18, p. 23, line 7). The plaintiff repeated her version several times during her cross-examination (pp. 31, line 15, 36; p. 32) and noted that the one who prevented her from getting into the ambulance was the driver and not the defendant, and that she had no conversation with the defendant and that the driver did not allow her to get into the ambulance because of her dress: "The driver said to me, 'Okay, it's not, you can't, you can't get in. You are dressed exposed, he does not agree,' I did not have a conversation with defendant 2" (p. 26, lines 22-23).
The plaintiff confirmed that she heard the defendant say the word "no" only, and beyond that, she had no conversation with him, but only with the defendant's employees (p. 18, lines 9-18; p. 25, line 31 to p. 25, line 14).