To this it should be added that, the defense and did not dispute the existence of a crack in the road in the lane of the vehicle involved, the defense did not dispute that the groove that was found was fresh and belongs to the accident in question, nor did it dispute the existence of asphalt finds on the underbelly of the vehicle involved.
The defense did not submit any evidence to contradict the findings and did not submit an expert opinion on its behalf to contradict the existence of these findings and the conclusion that arises from them.
The case law has recognized a lot of the mark of a slit on a road, as evidence that may determine the point of impact, i.e., the point of encounter and collision between the vehicles at the scene of the accident. For the purpose of this determination, the courts use the determinations of the opinions of examiners who are in charge of investigating road accidents.
In this regard, the words of the Supreme Court inCriminal Appeal 848/09Yitzhak Tzror v. State of Israel, given on February 17,2010:
"From this it was reasonable to conclude that the accident occurred on the opposite lane. Support for this was found, as stated, in the testimonies of the police examiners, who relied on the findings of the scene - the marks of the groove that were found in the southbound lane, the concentration of the vehicle wreckage and the trail of fluids - which can be clearly seen in the photographs - which, whether or not the battery fluid was included in it, pointed towards the same conclusion (see P/32). The District Court, therefore, reached the probable result among the alternatives presented to it."
IITraffic Criminal Appeal (Beer Sheva District) 10250-03-26, Yasser Abu-Fiyad v. State of Israel, was given on July 8,2026 by the Honorable Judge Shalev, where it was argued that the examiner relied mainly on a groove mark located on the road in a mixed vehicle lane, and the appellate court held as follows:
"The examiner and the court referred mainly to the fresh groove mark that is located in the middle of the driving lane of the involved vehicle, a mark that indicates the place of the injury, and from this place there are tire marks leading to the place where the involved vehicle was ultimately located. The examiner also explained the additional findings...
Even if there is substance to the defense attorney's claims that there was room for the examiner to make a damage adjustment and check whether it is possible to find which part of the vehicle involved caused the notch mark, there is justice in the words of the respondent's counsel that in view of the totality of the evidence, since the groove mark does not stand alone, and together with the tire marks that lead from the place of the groove to the place where the vehicle was stopped, this is sufficient to prove the place of impact.