Is there joint liability of the main contractor and subcontractors for a work accident on improvised scaffolding?
Jan 8, 2026
By: Adv. John Geva (John Geva-Hadar, Law Firm and Mediators)
Details of the Proceedings and Nature of the Claim
An important judgment was rendered on December 22, 2025, at the Magistrate's Court in Beit Shean, by the Honorable Judge Yaakov Solomon, in Civil Case 65388-01-22, John Doe v. Ofek Kal Construction Ltd. and Others. The matter concerns a claim for compensation for bodily injuries sustained by a construction worker (hereinafter: "the Plaintiff") following a fall from a scaffold that collapsed during his work at a construction site in Tel Aviv.
The claim was filed against Ofek Kal Construction Ltd. (hereinafter: "Ofek Company"), the Plaintiff's formal employer; Lanser Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter: "Lanser Company"), the main contractor in the project; and Ayalon Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter: "Ayalon"), Lanser Company's insurer. As part of the proceedings, third-party notices were filed against G.M.M. Ironworks Ltd. (hereinafter: "Ironworks Company"), to which the Plaintiff was seconded to perform field work. Additionally, a third-party claim was also filed against Ofer Levi Scaffolding Company (hereinafter: "Scaffolding Company").
The central dispute revolved around the circumstances of the accident, the question of liability and its distribution among the various parties, as well as the issue of insurance coverage for the subcontractors under the main contractor's policy.
The Plaintiff was represented by Adv. Ahad Agbaria; Ofek Company was represented by Adv. Inas Zuabi Tabani; Lanser Company and Ayalon were represented by Adv. Jubran; Ironworks Company was represented by Adv. Bader Ibrahim; Scaffolding Company was represented by Adv. Amitai Savion.
The factual background
The plaintiff, born in 1986, was employed by Ofek Company as a manual laborer. On July 14, 2019, while working at a construction site on Abu Sina Street in Tel Aviv, the plaintiff and his brother climbed onto scaffolding approximately 4 meters high to weld iron bridges. During the work, the scaffolding broke and collapsed, and the two brothers fell to the ground and were injured.
The court's findings revealed that the plaintiff formally worked for Ofek, but was loaned to a framework company to perform specific work at a site where Lancer was the main contractor. It was also determined that the scaffolding from which the plaintiff fell was not erected by a professional or by the plaintiff himself, but was improvised and unsafe scaffolding that was placed on the site. Following the accident, the plaintiff was recognized by the National Insurance Institute as a work injury victim and was diagnosed with medical disabilities in the fields of orthopedics and psychiatry.
Regarding the circumstances of the accident, three factual disputes arose: Did the plaintiff fall from the scaffolding that collapsed? Who did the plaintiff work for on the day of the accident? Who built the scaffolding?
Plaintiff's claims
The plaintiff claimed that the accident occurred due to the serious negligence of the defendants, who failed to provide a safe working environment, provided makeshift and defective scaffolding, and failed to equip it with the necessary protective equipment for working at height. He claimed that he initially refused to climb the scaffolding due to its instability, but was forced to do so under threat of dismissal.
Ofek Company's claims:
Ofek initially tried to disclaim liability by claiming that the plaintiff was not working on site on the day of the accident, but later its management admitted that this was a mistake and that the plaintiff was indeed working on its behalf for a framing company. It claimed that responsibility for on-site supervision lies with the main contractor and the framing company.
Lancer and Ayalon's claims:
Lancer claimed that the plaintiff was injured when he himself erected makeshift scaffolding in violation of the instructions. Ayalon claimed the lack of insurance coverage for Ofek and the Framing Company, on the grounds that they are not defined as insured in the policy and that the Ofek company manager gave a false version with fraudulent intent.
Frame company claims :
The Framing Company claimed that it acted in cooperation with Ofek and that the overall safety responsibility at the site lies with the main contractor.
The parties' claims
The court ruled that the accident occurred as the plaintiff describes in the lawsuit, that the plaintiff and his brother did not build the scaffolding but that it was improvised scaffolding, and that the plaintiff was officially employed by Ofek Company but on the day of the accident was loaned by it to a framing company. Accordingly, the court accepted the lawsuit and ruled that Ofek Company, Lancer Company, and Framing Company are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's damages.
Liability and negligence:
The judge ruled that it was proven that the plaintiff fell from a makeshift scaffold that collapsed. Regarding Ofek Company, it was determined that as a direct employer, it violated the duty of care to ensure that the worker was sent to a safe environment and equipped with protective equipment, when the plaintiff and his brother initially refused to climb the scaffold without the appropriate equipment. Regarding Lancer Company, it was determined that as a main contractor, it violated the duty of superior supervision and did not ensure the existence of proper scaffolding and safety briefings. Regarding Framing Company, it was determined that it served as the actual employer in the field and controlled the manner in which the work was performed, and therefore owed an increased duty of care to the plaintiff.
The court divided the liability between the parties so that Ofek would bear 40%, Framing Company 40%, and Lancer Company 20%.
The issue of donor guilt:
According to the defendants, the plaintiff could have been held to be contributory, given the fact that he did not use protective equipment despite having undergone training on this matter. The court rejected the attempt to hold the plaintiff to be contributory. It was determined that the plaintiff protested the condition of the scaffolding and acted under pressure from his employers, and that in the balance of power between employee and employer, there is no room to hold the employee liable when the employer violated basic statutory obligations of working at height.
Insurance coverage: On this fundamental issue, the judge rejected Ayalon's position and ruled that the main contractor's policy also covers the subcontractors and the subcontractors of the subcontractors, even if they were not explicitly named. Regarding Ayalon's fraud claim against Ofek, it was determined that, despite the contradictions in the director's versions, no fraudulent intent was proven to justify denial of insurance coverage, and that this was a failed attempt by the insured to "evade" liability at the initial stage, which does not amount to insurance fraud.
The court's decision and the essential reasons
End of the matter
The court ordered Ofek, Lancer, Framing and Ayalon, jointly and severally and through Ayalon, to pay the plaintiff a total of approximately NIS 860,000 (before deductions). After a notional deduction of the NSL benefits that the plaintiff was required to pay in the amount of NIS 114,417, the amount of compensation was set at
The ruling reinforces the approach that places safety responsibility on the entire chain of command at the construction site.
As of the date of this writing, no appeal has been filed with the District Court.
מסמכים
