District: Ramat HaHayal parking lot collapse disaster: Does the use of heavy mechanical tools turn a building collapse into a "traffic accident"?
Mar 31, 2026
By: Adv. John Geva
Proceeding Details and the Essence of the Judgment
The (partial) judgment was delivered on March 29, 2026, by the Central District Court–Lod, by the Honorable Judge Irit Cohen, in the consolidated proceedings: Civil Cases 23558-01-17, 72487-12-20, and 62604-05-17. The subject of the partial judgment is the determination of whether the incident constitutes a road accident within the meaning of the Compensation for Victims of Road Accidents Law, 1975 (hereinafter: the “Compensation Law”). In light of the exclusivity of the cause of action established under the Compensation Law, it was decided to bifurcate the proceedings so that this question would be determined first.
The consolidated claims were filed by the dependents and heirs of four workers who were killed on September 5, 2016, as a result of the collapse of the Iron Parking Garage in Ramat HaHayal, Tel Aviv, during its construction (hereinafter: the “plaintiffs”). The National Insurance Institute (hereinafter: the “NII”) joined the proceedings, upon its request, as an additional plaintiff. The claim was initially filed on tort grounds under the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (hereinafter: the “CWO”) against the project’s developers, designers, and contractors, as well as their insurers (hereinafter: the “CWO defendants”).
In light of the presence of a backhoe and a loader at the site, which, according to the CWO defendants, were used in a manner that caused the accident, those defendants argued that the event constitutes a road accident within the meaning of the Compensation Law. Accordingly, the statement of claim was amended, and Hachshara Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Hachshara”) and Ayalon Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Ayalon”; collectively: the “Motor Vehicle Liability Insurers”) were added as defendants, in their capacity as the compulsory motor insurers of the backhoe and the loader that were operating at the site.
The central dispute for the purpose of this determination revolves around the question of causation: whether the use of the vehicles constituted a substantial factor in the collapse, or whether this was an engineering/design failure that does not fall within the scope of the Compensation Law.
The factual background and circumstances of the incident
The collapsed Iron Parking Garage consisted of four reinforced concrete slabs and was designed to accommodate approximately 540 vehicles across four levels. On the day of the incident, earth-filling works on the roof of the garage were in full progress. At that time, two main machines were operating on the roof slab: a JCB backhoe loader (hereinafter: “the backhoe”), insured by Hachshara, and a Volvo wheeled loader (hereinafter: “the loader”), insured by Ayalon.
During the morning, the loader made repeated trips to transport piles of soil from the staging area to the center of the slab. According to the findings, the loader deposited an enormous كمية of soil weighing approximately 200 tons at the center of the roof, while traveling over areas that had not been approved for traffic. The backhoe, for its part, was engaged in spreading the soil. At the onset of the collapse process, both the loader and the backhoe were on the roof slab; however, seconds before the collapse, the loader managed to exit the slab area by quickly reversing. The collapse occurred with great force, resulting in the deaths of several workers, injuries to others, and the total destruction of the structure.
Claims of the PKNZ defendants: These defendants claimed that the dump truck and the backhoe were the direct "trigger" for the collapse. According to them, the dump truck and the backhoe exerted unusual loads that exceeded the permissible limits by hundreds of percent, and the operation of these tools was contrary to the guidelines. It was further claimed that the dump truck introduced an enormous weight that was a significant factor in the collapse, and they attempted to compare the act of loading the dirt onto the ceiling to the act of pouring concrete, which was previously discussed in a ruling that determined that an accident under these circumstances constitutes a traffic accident under the Compensation Law. It was claimed that the structure stood intact for a month and a half under various loads, despite the design and performance deficiencies, and could have lasted for decades. According to the PKNZ defendants, it is sufficient that one of the causes of the event was a vehicle to define the event as a traffic accident under the Compensation Law, and that there is no other apparent real reason to affect the legal classification of the event. The defendants of the PKNZ claimed that the closeness of time between the use of the shovel and the excavator and the collapse, and the fact that their use made a real contribution to the collapse, establishes the causal link between their use and the collapse.
Claims of the insurance companies:
The Halatd insurers claimed that the site was a "ticking bomb." In their opinion, the weight of the vehicles does not constitute use of a vehicle. It was emphasized that in the criminal proceedings, claims regarding the cause of the collapse were rejected, while adopting the Technion report, which in their opinion shows that the vehicles had no influence on the accident. It was further claimed that the loading of the dirt constitutes unloading and loading that was excluded from the category of "use of a vehicle" in the Compensation Law. It was also claimed that in any case, this is a materialization of an engineering risk at a construction site and not a transportation risk.
The parties' claims
The District Court's decision and the essential reasons
The District Court examined the scientific evidence, the opinions of the experts (Dr. Agranti and the Technion report) and decided to reject the claim that this was a traffic accident. In her reasoned decision, Judge Irit Cohen presented a number of essential legal and factual elements:
Distinguishing between the backhoe and the shofel in terms of the factual causal connection: The District Court ruled that with regard to the backhoe, no causal connection to the collapse was proven. The backhoe was engaged in spreading the dirt and was not in the area where the columns failed. On the other hand, with regard to the shofel, it was determined that a factual causal connection did exist. The shofel's action – transporting 200 tons of dirt and driving it on the ceiling – contributed to the physical load that led to the collapse at the specific point in time. The court rejected the claim of the Halatad insurers that the shofel's action falls within the scope of unloading and loading, since the shofel was operating while in motion.
Lack of legal causality and the risk test: This is the legal heart of the ruling. The District Court made it clear that the existence of a factual causality is not sufficient. According to the "risk test" and the "common sense test", it must be examined whether a legal causality exists. It was determined that the collapse resulted from a chain of planning and execution failures: a 30% lower amount of concrete than required, errors in the computer model, premature dismantling of the supports, and poor concrete strength.
In fact, it was ruled that the collapse was, at most, the straw that broke the camel's back, in a structure with many flaws. Applying liability to the insurers of the PLT, in circumstances where the structure would have collapsed anyway due to the many defects, is inconsistent with the purpose of the law. The Compensation Law was not intended to grant immunity from negligence in the construction of a structure dangerous to the public by shifting liability to the insurers of vehicles operating on the site.
Distinction from the "Oved Levy" rule: The defendants of the PKNZ tried to build on this rule, but the court examined the cases. In the "Oved Levy" matter, the role of the other factors was not proven, and therefore it was assumed that the use of the vehicle was a real factor. In the present case, the Technion report proved that the design failure was fundamental. Therefore, the dump and the excavator did not constitute a "real factor" in the legal sense.
Summary and conclusion
The District Court held that the incident does not constitute a “road accident” within the meaning of this term under the Compensation Law. The claim against the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurers was dismissed in full, such that liability will be determined במסגרת the tort causes of action under the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (CWO) against the CWO defendants.
Based on the above, the CWO defendants were ordered to pay each of the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurers legal costs in the amount of NIS 75,000. This was due, inter alia, to the need for the insurance companies to defend themselves not only in this case, but also in dozens of additional claims filed against them in light of the arguments raised by the CWO defendants.
The judgment serves as an important legal marker for developers and contractors seeking to take shelter under the Compensation Law in cases involving engineering failures. It sharpens the principle that the mere physical involvement of vehicles at a construction site does not automatically transform an engineering disaster into a road accident, and reinforces the need to examine the “real (effective) cause” and the social purpose underlying the Compensation Law.
As of the date of writing, it is not yet known whether an appeal has been filed with the Supreme Court against this judgment.
מסמכים
