Even if the defendant had gotten out of the car, the defendant's employees could have taken a variety of actions to deal with the incident, but they did not take any of them and went for the easy option - and very difficult for the plaintiff - to humiliate and humiliate the plaintiff while repeatedly referring to her "exposed" clothing, without the defendant making such a demand.
If the defendant's employees believed that the defendant endangered public safety by refusing to continue driving, certainly if he did get out of the ambulance, they should have called the police immediately in order to prevent the risk to public health.
- The plaintiff was not offered any alternative except for the demand that she change clothes, no request was made to the defendant to clarify with him the demand to dress "modestly" or to make it clear to him that the demand was not legitimate and would not be answered. The defendant's employees did not try to contact the police and did not try to arrange seats differently.
Moreover, even after the plaintiff clarified that she had no other clothes, that she had recently moved, and that all of her clothes were short summer clothes, the driver and/or manager did not think of contacting the defendant to explain the situation, and then they would have discovered their mistake, and preferred to force the plaintiff to wait for another transportation.
In these circumstances, the defendant's employees created a situation in which the plaintiff had no chance of convincing them to allow her to board the ambulance , all due to reference to her dress code and improper placement of a dress code.
- The other passenger who was in the ambulance was not brought to testify, and each side sought to attribute this to the other party's obligation.
Mr. Kushnir explained that he tried to locate her, but in the absence of her cooperation, it was not possible to bring her to testify (p. 99, lines 5-8). No evidence of this was presented, and in any event, the defendant did not file a motion to summon her through the court on this ground.
- In its summaries, the defendant argued that the failure to bring the witness should be attributed to the defendant's obligation, and as a result, it should be determined that it was able to prove that the defendant objected to the plaintiff's boarding of the ambulance because of her dress and placed this ultimatum before the defendant. The defendant's claim should be rejected.
First, the defendant was unable to prove that the defendant had issued the alleged ultimatum. It was proven that there was no demand on the part of the defendant related to the plaintiff's dress.