The Court's Note
Photograph P/33B is shown on television in the court, on which the examiner demonstrates the accident.
A. If you look at the white car, you see that the black car is at an angle to it, i.e., the possibility of a front-facing version, the collapse of the front of the vehicle, and the elevation of the rear and landing in place and driving backwards, is not the situation described here. We see in the picture that the defendant's vehicle is at an angle to the vehicle involved. This means that in addition to force, there is also a side force. This causes that because it is not a front against an adapted front, but rather a vehicle that is involved at a distance of about 40 centimeters from the side of the vehicle that was stuck inside the defendant's vehicle.
In this case, both bands are indeed rising, the Kia collapses into the asphalt, both of them make a turning motion in the act of changing in places where the only thing that prevents Vehicle B from making a perfect turn, is the ditch, while the defendant's vehicle makes a perfect turn." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 61-62, paras. 28-32,1-23).
The examiner testified, because the accident was not on the curve but on a straight section of the road.
To the Court's QuestionWhen the examiner was asked to describe the manner in which the accident occurred, he testified:
"I explain that the accident occurred on top of the sketch in accordance with G. in the sketch, which is
The position of the grooves and the image No. 28 both rise up and make a rotational motion,
When the vehicle of the woman involved after the groove is smeared and thrown into the curb/ditch and the defendant's vehicle
Makes 180 degree rotation, stops in his lane with his face against the original direction of travel
Own." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, p. 63, paras. 23-26).
When the examiner is told, that the manner in which he described the accident in his testimony in cross-examination does not appear in the examiner's report testified:
"Q. I tell you that everything you describe does not appear in your examiner's report and there is no elevation in the examination report and the adjustment of your damages does not match what you just described, because the defendant's vehicle is taller than the vehicle involved and according to the testimonies of the woman involved, he got on it and collapsed it and you can see it in the photos as well. Turning to picture no. 22. That's why you don't have any grooves from the defendant's car either. Therefore, there could also be the possibility that we will swerve everyone a little to the right in the direction of the defendant's car and the vehicle involved will also deviate slightly, because it enters a bend and it comes out of a bend, and just as the witness Ayalon testified that she tried to swerve to the left and the accident happened that she was a little on the opposite lane of the defendant's car.
A. You can see in photo 22 that the hood of the Kia car is clean, except for color drops in the area of the folds. I see in photo 22 that there are signs of lines on the hood of the Kia car and I don't think it's tire marks and it doesn't look like a tire mark and you can see in photo 28 the overlap of the damage, it means that the hood of the Kia folded backwards in exactly this position as it appears in photo 28.
After that, the defendant drove the Mazda Crashes the vehicle involved because it is taller and because of the angle at which it hits the vehicle involved, the two vehicles make a rotational motion as I showed earlier, with the Kia car standing on the curb and the defendant's vehicle standing on its lane against the direction of its traffic.
In my humble opinion, if the defendant's counsel said that the defendant's vehicle would have overtaken the vehicle involved, it would have folded down the entire bending backwards and crushed it.
...
Q. I tell you that if you look at the car and look at the testimony of the person involved and say that the car entered me through the window, it got over me. There is no way that the defendant's vehicle goes up in the air with its rear, after all, the defendant's vehicle is higher than the Kia. If both vehicles had collapsed into the same place, we would have seen cracks from both vehicles, there could not be cracks only from the vehicle involved if the vehicle did not overtake it. Should there be some sign from the defendant's vehicle that it also collapsed?
A. It may be, the two vehicles do not always go down and collide with the asphalt, sometimes only one vehicle as in the case before us, descends during the accident towards the asphalt and therefore there are accidents where grooves are left from only one vehicle.
Q. I'm showing you a picture of the left wheel of the defendant's car from a puncture from the accident, if the car makes a 180-degree turn, no groove is found?
A. Nope.
Q. Explain to me why, after all, the wheel has collapsed, the Giant touches the floor, and there is no way that a Giant that touches the floor and weighs 3.5 tons, will not leave a mark on the floor, especially in turning? After all, there is no dispute that the defendant's wheel is a flat tire from the accident. There is no dispute and there can be no dispute that this wheel must leave a mark on the road. I searched for so many photos that would document this picture on the field and I couldn't find it. If you had taken the picture in the lot, we would have also seen the marks on the Giant itself. This is a picture that I show you from the scene you took.
A. The weight of the Mazda CX5 is 1.6 tons, I don't know if it will leave a mark, it depends on the nature of the accident.
II"The defendant:
Presents to the court that the defendant's vehicle weighs about 2 tons.