It seems that the defendant did not know how to explain the findings found in the field and the testimonies, and dismissed himself with a casual answer that: "He was in his lane" and he thinks that his deviation is impossible, taking into account that the defendant stated in his interrogation that he did not know how the accident occurred and that he did not see the deviation of the woman involved, but only saw her in front of him. (P/43 S. 59-62).
It is a well-known rule that when it comes to In a sudden departure from the driving lane, the burden is on the driver who deviates from the lane to explain the reason for the deviation.
In this regard, the words that were said inCriminal Appeal (Tel Aviv) 71696/03, State of Israel District Attorney's Office Criminal Civil Case v. Chen Ben Moshe Yasharim, given on February 24,2005:
"With regard to the burden of proof, my view is that the trial court was right, that the burden of explaining the deviation to the opposite lane rested on the appellant's shoulders. This was because of the "rule of the way" (as other municipal motions were called) 506/64 Gal et al. v. Stopper et al., IsrSC 19(2) 556).
...
The prosecution must prove the details of the negligence it attributes to the driver. In this case, the prosecution fulfilled its obligation to prove that the appellant deviated from the opposite path. ... As stated, the deviation to the opposite path creates a presumption of negligence, which is the presumption of fact, based on life experience and common sense. This presumption shifts, as stated, the tactical burden on the defendant's shoulders, to contradict it" (Criminal Appeal 70768/01 Aharon Elkayam v. State of Israel, District Laws 33 (4) 909; and see also Criminal Appeal 71208,71190/03 Volodarsky v. State of Israel (2004 (3) 6892); Criminal Appeal 70007/01 Yitzhak Albo v. State of Israel, Lev District Laws (9) 417; Criminal Appeal 50/68 Degani v. State of Israel, IsrSC 22 (2) 274)."
The Legal Significance of These Wordsis that from the moment I determined that it was the defendant who deviated from his lane of travel to the opposite lane of the party involved, a presumption arose that the defendant acted negligently, and from that moment on, the burden shifts to the defendant to contradict the presumption of negligence.
In the case at hand, the defendant did not succeed in contradicting this presumption even with a shred of evidence.