She was so insulted and ashamed, and out of a desire that the daughter would not be attacked in a fit of anxiety and rage, the defendant did not open her mouth and her whole body trembled with shame and disgrace. The plaintiff restrained herself and maintained a calm expression in order to radiate calm to her daughter. The plaintiff returned to the car and drove away. At this point, the defendant was unable to control her emotions, and burst into tears in front of passers-by.
The defendant requested that another driver be sent to pick up the daughter, but she never demanded that anyone fire the plaintiff. The defendant even waived the prosecution of his case in connection with the Ministry of Transportation's approach to her following the incident, since he spared the plaintiff's livelihood.
- Indeed, shortly after the incident, the defendant published a post in which she described the plaintiff's conduct. In the post that the defendant wrote, there is no identifying detail of the plaintiff, since beyond his first name only and the photograph of the Mercedes car, there is no identifying detail of the plaintiff, and a person exposed to that post cannot link the plaintiff to the incident, and point to the plaintiff as the person to whom the matter relates, even though the content of the post is true.
- Summary of the Defendant's Arguments in the Counterclaim:
On the basis of its arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct in the incident, the defendant filed a counterclaim. There, she petitioned to oblige the plaintiff to pay compensation in the amount of ILS 80,000, for the following grounds:
14.1 Breach of statutory duty - The plaintiff gets out of his car, leaving the defendant's daughter and the assistant alone in the car with the engine running. This constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 3.3.5 of Circular No. 0153 of the Director General of the Ministry of Education, where a bus driver is prohibited from leaving the vehicle as long as there are students in it. Violation of this provision constitutes a violation of the provisions Section 287(a) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (hereinafter - Penal Law), since the Director General of the Ministry of Education is "an official acting officially and authorized for the same matter", and the legal provision in this case is intended to protect human life.