According to him, the driver told him that the plaintiff was wearing a tank top and the fish was "open to the chest" and added that he did not believe that in the two suitcases that the plaintiff was in possession there was no clothing that was not "exposed", not even a regular tank top and not "exposed" like the one she was wearing (p. 104, lines 25-29).
Regarding the possibility of contacting the police in light of the defendant's refusal to continue the trip, he explained, "This whole situation did not seem extreme to me to the point of calling the police" (p. 72, lines 11-12), and that calling the police "is cumbersome" (p. 79, lines 18-19) and therefore it was easier to make illegitimate demands on the plaintiff to change clothes and even refuse to put her in the car than to turn to the defendant or, God forbid, to activate the police. As is required of those who violate the Corona guidelines.
- I found it acceptable to accept the plaintiff's version that was not contradicted and that was backed up by the defendant's testimony, in contrast to the defendant's driver's version, which was full of inaccuracies and in which he stated a lot that he did not remember. In essence, this is an incident in which a COVID-19 patient with active symptoms was refused to board the ambulance because of her "exposed" clothing.
I did not find any basis for the driver's erroneous assumption and the subsequent assumption of his manager that the reason for the defendant's refusal was related to the plaintiff's clothing, but rather his erroneous fear that the presence of additional patients in the ambulance would worsen his medical condition. There was no dialogue between the defendant and the plaintiff or the manager. The only person who allegedly spoke with the defendant was the driver, but I did not find his testimony preferable, according to which the defendant made a demand that the plaintiff not join the trip because of her dress, over the version of the defendant and the plaintiff. The fact that the driver and his manager did not try to clarify the matter with the defendant at all, and insofar as his demand is related to the plaintiff's clothing, then persuading him to retract his demand shows that they made a mistake and acted under the wrong assumption and not because the words were said by the defendant. It has not been proven that at this stage, when the defendant was attributed to the defendant, the defendant saw the plaintiff at all and how she was dressed.
- The plaintiff and the defendant denied that the defendant got out of the ambulance. The driver's version was inconsistent. In the affidavit he claimed that to the best of his memory the defendant got out or said he would get out if the plaintiff got into the car, and that he insisted on his refusal to be in the ambulance with the plaintiff (paragraph 9 of the driver's affidavit) and in his testimony before me he stated that the defendant "got out. He was standing like that next to the ambulance, if I'm not mistaken" (p. 56, line 28).
In these circumstances, the defendant was unable to prove that the defendant got out of the vehicle, and that he did so due to his refusal to travel with the plaintiff because of her "exposed" dress. In these circumstances, no contribution or assistance on the part of the defendant to the statements and actions of the defendant's employees towards the plaintiff was proven.