As stated above, the defendant claims that the plaintiff carried out a prohibited publication of defamation, which was expressed in the objectification of the plaintiff's daughter and her minimization, as was done in the presence of the plaintiff and the assistant, when the plaintiff compared the daughter to a piece of tin, and determined that a piece of tin - when referring to the Mercedes car - was preferable to the defendant's daughter. This constitutes a prohibited publication of defamation.
The plaintiff categorically denies the statements attributed to him, and claims that he never said them. The plaintiff claims that he never - and certainly not publicly - compared the defendant's daughter to anything, and certainly never compared her to a "piece of tin".
The defendant did not prove the things denied by the plaintiff. In this regard, it must be reiterated that although - according to the defendant - was a witness to the incident and the statement of the aide - she was not summoned to testify by the defendant, and this should be attributed to the defendant's duty in accordance with the case law regarding refraining from testifying as a witness.
Moreover, if the words were indeed said outside the taxi, when the defendant's daughter and the assistant were inside the taxi, then the element of publicity is missing here, namely that the words were said only between the defendant and the plaintiff.
- With regard to the defendant's additional cause of action, breach of legislative duty, the defendant bases its claim in this matter on two things:
35.1 Violation of Instructions Regulation 74(b) to the Traffic Regulations, 5721-1961, according to which parking a vehicle or parking it unsupervised will be done only after the engine has ceased to operate;
35.2 Provision of Section 3.3.5 of Circular No. 0153 of the Director General of the Ministry of Education, according to which the driver of a transportation vehicle for people with disabilities is prohibited from leaving the vehicle "as long as there are students in it."
- I did not find that the plaintiff was able to prove this cause of action as well. I did not find that in the circumstances of the case, the defendant was able to prove as to my determination the violation of any of the provisions of the aforementioned legislation. It was not proven that the plaintiff left the vehicle and left it unattended. This is especially true when there is no dispute that the assistant remained in the car with the defendant's daughter.
- Moreover, In section 63(a) The Torts Ordinance (New Version) defines the tort of breach of statutory duty as follows:
"A breach of a statutory duty is a person who fails to fulfill a duty imposed on him under any statute - except this Ordinance - and the statute, according to its correct interpretation, is intended for the benefit or protection of another person, and the breach caused that person damage of the type or nature of the damage intended by the statute."