Are the defendants jointly wrongdoers?
- According to Naveh, The defendants are jointly and severally liable as jointly tortors according to Article 11 to the Torts Ordinance, for the entire chain of events that led to the severe violation of his privacy. According to him, the defendants embraced Steif and the products of the burglary, all of whom were well aware and at least turned their eyes to the criminality that was attached to the manner in which the materials were obtained by her. There is no need to prove that the accomplice committed all the elements of the tort or was present at every stage, and it is sufficient that the defendants can be seen as acting together for the same goal and with an awareness of "what we are going towards".
On the other hand, the defendants' position is that they have an absolute defense against the lawsuit, and that they should be regarded as "separate wrongdoers" who caused separate damages, and as a result, their liability is also completely separate. According to them, the affair consists of three separate factual segments (the hacking of the device and the extraction of the content, the sharing of the content by Steif, and the special transmitter), while the rest of the defendants had no part, knowledge or action in the first segment. The following segments cannot also be viewed as a single piece, since some of the defendants did not review the materials at all and some did not take part in the broadcast, and therefore this is damage that can be separated and divided between them.
- Having considered the arguments of the parties, I am of the opinion that the degree of liability for each of the relevant torts should be separated.
Regarding the violation of privacy - there is joint responsibility for the violation of Naveh's privacy. This liability stems from the fact that joint meetings were held in which the defendants examined, discussed and perused Naveh's personal materials, and were even partners in the special broadcast that was held afterwards. However, as we have said, all the defendants, with the exception of Steif, have protections under the law. Thus, they should not be held liable for the violation of privacy.