The witness did not remember whether there was a protective suit in the ambulance that could have been given to the plaintiff, and in any case he did not think of offering it.
- It is clear from Mr. Luban's testimony that he tried to distance himself from the incident by projecting the responsibility on the defendant and his manager. Many questions were not answered at all, noting that four years had passed since the incident and he did not remember its details, including that he did not remember the conversation with the defendant, he did not remember that he demanded that the plaintiff change his clothes, he did not remember whether the plaintiff and the defendant spoke to each other or not. I got the impression that the witness does not attribute importance to the incident, and that from his point of view he is a medic, and therefore, as he puts it, "he thinks about other things that are more important to me" (p. 28, line 33). According to Mr. Luban, he called his manager to receive instructions, thus effectively relieving himself of responsibility for solving the problem that had arisen on the ground. It is evident that the witness was less comfortable answering questions to which he did not remember, and at the same time he answered questions that were consistent with his version that he acted as he did due to the defendant's demand and the instructions from his manager.
- The witness Luben confirmed that there was another passenger in the ambulance when the defendant joined the ride. The witness confirmed the defendant's version that he complained about the presence of the other passenger, "posed, faced, but sat really, really in the back and turned with his face like that" in a different direction from the same passenger (p. 55, lines 12-13). This reinforces the defendant's version that he expected the ride without additional patients, and therefore to the extent that he expressed his displeasure with the plaintiff, it was because of the fact that she joined the trip and not in connection with her clothing.
The witness Luban confirmed the defendant's statement that he was not satisfied with the presence of the other passenger when he arrived at the car, but in view of his convictions, he relented and continued driving. The defendant also expressed his displeasure with the plaintiff - another patient - joining the trip, but the driver assumed that it had to do with her clothing, and therefore the defendant was not contacted at all to convince him that there was nothing to fear, since he himself was a confirmed patient.
- Leonid Kushnir, the defendant's manager, stated in his testimony before me that he understood from the driver that the defendant was not willing to travel with the plaintiff because of her dress, and added, "So I said, 'Maybe you will put something on you, or you will replace something,' as if it were for her benefit" (p. 67, lines 19-20). He spoke with the driver, with the conversation taking place through a loudspeaker on his mobile phone, in which he was told that the plaintiff was dressed "exposed" and therefore the witness suggested that she change her clothes. According to him, the change of clothes was not a condition for the plaintiff to enter the ambulance, but rather an attempt to find a solution that would allow her to continue traveling with all the patients registered for the same transportation. The witness confirmed that he did not try to speak with the defendant and only contacted the plaintiff. He understood that the defendant had gotten out of the ambulance or opened the door in order to get out of it. The witness insisted that the reason he agreed to the defendant's demand was the distance from his place of residence, regardless of the plaintiff's clothing. The witness noted that he tried to do the right thing in the complex circumstances presented to him, so that the plaintiff, who is near her home, would wait for another evacuation vehicle, and the defendant, who lives far away, would continue driving to the motel and would not wait in the public space, contrary to the Corona guidelines, which prohibit patients from coming into contact with the public.
Regarding the plaintiff's offer to cover herself with a garbage bag in order to join the trip, the witness claimed that he was not aware of this and that he had not heard of it.
- I did not find that the witness Laban took any action to solve the problem, except for the telephone call to his manager, and that too in view of the plaintiff's demand in her attempt to bring about a change in the decision. If the witness had taken such a basic and simple action and approached the defendant, he would have revealed the reason for his refusal - his mistaken fear that the presence of another coronavirus patient in the car might worsen his medical condition, and he would have been able to persuade him to continue driving, as he had convinced him in relation to the first female passenger.
Unfortunately, the plaintiff's request to Mr. Kushnir was also unsuccessful, and she did not receive any proper response.
- Kushnir's testimony sheds light on the contemptuous and outrageous attitude of the defendant's employees in the plaintiff in light of the improper claim of wearing "exposed". While the plaintiff was presented with an uncompromising demand to change clothes, the defendant's employees did not bother to contact the defendant in any way or discourse, nor did they convince him or take any measure against him, insofar as he would have refused to allow the plaintiff to join the trip due to "immodest" clothing. This is an intolerable approach that imposes liability on the plaintiff, even in retrospect, without any self-criticism and taking responsibility on the part of the defendant's employees.
Thus, according to Mr. Kushnir, "if she had not worn barefoot, there would not have been this problem at all" (p. 78, line 14), and he summed up the plaintiff's refusal to change clothes with the words "to make a principle" (p. 105, lines 35-36), while ignoring her statement that she does not have long clothes in her suitcase or in her home at all.