The plaintiff was corroborated with versions she gave in the media regarding the incident in which she attributed the refusal to put her in the ambulance to the defendant and explained that the words were as she had been told by the driver and not because she had heard it from the defendant and her explanations were not contradicted. The plaintiff further noted that the defendant did not get out of the vehicle, and that with the exception of the word "no", which is doubtful whether it was said in connection with it, she is not aware of any connection between the defendant and the defendant's employees' refusal to put her in the ambulance (p. 29, lines 9-31). The plaintiff did not know what really happened between the driver and the defendant, since she did not witness it (p. 30, lines 1-3).
- Moshe Lanchevsky, the defendant, stated in his testimony before me that he told the defendant's driver that he had asked the Home Front Command to drive alone, and they agreed, and therefore he was not willing to have other people travel with him (p. 107, lines 18-19). The defendant stated that his wife suffered from a medical problem and he feared for her well-being and therefore asked to be evacuated to a corona motel. When he got to the ambulance, he saw a woman sitting inside. To his displeasure and in light of the driver's efforts to persuade him, he got into the ambulance. In his testimony, the defendant detailed his fear of the coronavirus. Although he was a confirmed patient, he was afraid of the presence of other patients by his side, and accordingly, when he arrived at the motel, he insisted on sleeping in the room alone. According to him, his father begged him not to go to the motel, but he was afraid that he would infect his wife, so he evacuated to the motel. He didn't know they were on their way to pick up another patient, and if he did , he wouldn't have agreed to get into the car in the first place. When they arrived at the plaintiff's address, he was sure that they had arrived at the motel. He did not speak to the plaintiff at all and did not tell anyone anything about her dress. He sat in the ambulance and listened to sermons on his cell phone, the door opened, and then the driver asked him if he would be willing for another female passenger to board, and he reiterated that he had been promised by the Home Front Command that he would travel alone on the bus. He did not comment on the plaintiff's dress and in any case did not see her at all.
He has no evidence that the Home Front Command promised him that he would travel alone, because he did not think it was necessary to record the conversation. He has a "kosher" phone, and the calls to the Home Front Command were from this device. The witness added, "He [the driver] arrived, I was waiting, I thought in a second they would take me down, the door opened, I thought he was taking off the suitcases, suddenly the suitcase came up, I turn around and see a suitcase and the driver asks me..(p. 13, lines 31-33). He later stated that he heard shouting, but put on headphones and was not interested in the argument (p. 124, lines 13-14). The witness remembers that when asked by the driver, he replied that he was "willing to wait with the ambulance here until another ambulance passes, I'm willing to be given some private place or some garden in a deserted area, something, to be somewhere alone and to be taken away... I said what I was prepared for... I mean to say that I had no interest in rushing to the motel now..." (p. 124, line 30 to p. 125, line 4).
- The defendant's version fits in with the plaintiff's version and complements it in a way that the defendant did not refer to the plaintiff's dress, but rather that he mistakenly believed that the presence of additional patients in the evacuation vehicle might worsen his medical condition, and therefore he asked not to include additional passengers. Although the driver convinced the defendant to travel with the woman who was already present in the car, he did not make a similar effort with respect to the plaintiff in view of the assumption that it was related to the plaintiff's clothing.
- Alexander Luban, a paramedic and ambulance driver, an employee of the defendant, insisted in his cross-examination on his version that in view of the defendant's objection and the instructions he received from his manager, he was left with no choice but to prevent the plaintiff from entering the vehicle and to continue traveling with the defendant and the other passenger.
According to him, when the ambulance arrived at the plaintiff's address, the defendant told him, "If she is driving... How she is dressed, I am not willing to continue the journey" (p. 38, lines 11-12). However, later in his cross-examination , the witness clarified that he did not really remember whether the defendant said anything or not about the plaintiff's clothing, and added, "I don't know, I don't remember if he said anything, he didn't say anything. I remember him saying he wasn't ready and I left... Then he came out of the back door of the ambulance and started shouting that he was not going on" (p. 39, lines 22-24). The plaintiff and the defendant did not confirm that the defendant got out of the vehicle and shouted. The witness does not recall demanding that the plaintiff change his clothes, but rather called his manager in order to receive instructions (p. 39, lines 33-35). He told his manager that there was a patient who was not willing to continue the trip "because she looks like this, dressed, who is not willing that he is religious and that's it" (p. 40, line 5). The witness explained that it was important for him to continue the trip, he was dressed in full protection, according to the instructions at the time it was hot (July), when in those days there was an instruction not to turn on the air conditioners in the car.