There is no dispute, because the loss of air in the tire was caused by the accident.
Given the fact that the defense did not claim a tire failure and did not submit any counter-opinion on its behalf in this matter, as a possible cause of the deviation, and that the defendant adhered to his original version, that the driver involved was the one who swerved into the defendant's lane, and even the defense during the course of the case did not claim a tire failure, I accept as a proven fact the conclusion that there was no tire failure in any of the vehicles involved at the time of the accident as a possible cause of the vehicle deviation and the occurrence of the accident.
Testimony of the Involved Driver - Achinoam in light of her medical condition
The driver involved Achinoam testified before the court.
In its cross-examination, the defense tried to show that there were inaccuracies and/or contradictions between her testimony in court and her testimony to the police that was given after the accident, testimony given by the driver involved in the Beit Levinstein rehabilitation center after the serious injury.
Documentation of the serious injury emerges from the medical documents submitted as part of her testimony in the main interrogation - P/1A, P1/B, P/2, P/3 and even the court was able to get the impression for itself during her testimony that the driver involved was seriously injured in the accident.
For example, the driver involved was interrogated in her cross-examination because in her testimony to the police, she did not say anywhere that she was driving in her lane, while in her testimony in court she said that the accident occurred in her lane.
In her interrogation with the police, she said that she did not remember if it had rained, while in her testimony in court she said that it had rained before the accident.
During her interrogation with the police, she stated that she had a field of vision and later the police interrogation when asked if she had noticed the defendant's car before the accident, replied that she did not and did not even see his lights, and that in her testimony in court after she was shown the field of vision video, she said that the lights could be seen.
To the question of how fast she droveIn her testimony in court, she testified in the main interrogation that she did not drive above the speed limit, and in her cross-examination, when asked whether 80 km/h is a reasonable speed in circumstances of rain and lack of lighting, she replied - "I have no idea, it seems less to me" and when asked if she told the examiner that she drove at 70-80 km/h, she replied that "probably 70 km/h".
In this regard, it should be said, because all these attempts by the defense to undermine the witness and undermine her testimony do not help the defense.
A careful examination of the witness's interrogation with the police shows that her answers in the police interrogation do not contradict her testimony in court.
Regarding the rain, in her testimony in court, the witness did not say that it was raining at the time of the accident until before the accident and in her interrogation with the police, when she was asked about this matter, she replied that she did not remember (see N/1 - her interrogation at the Levinstein House of September 12,2023, pp. 1,22-23, pp. 2,13-14).
Regarding the fact that the accident occurred in her lane, in her testimony in court, she said that the accident occurred in her lane (see her testimony in court of 8 January 2025, p. 6, para. 29), and in her interrogation with the police, when asked which lane the accident occurred, she answered in the same manner: "In my lane, not in his." (See N/1 - her interrogation at the Levinstein House on September 12,2023, pp. 2, paras. 9-10).