Engineer sentenced to prison for causing death by negligence
Jun 6, 2019
By: Miri Levhar, VP, Itzick Simon - the leading construction insurance agency
Negligence by engineers and planners can cause not only the death of workers at a construction site, but also harm to people from the community who arrive at the site afterwards. This is, for example, the tragic story of Mr. Yavne's wedding night, when at the height of the party the central lighting fixture in the event hall collapsed. This resulted in the death of one of the celebrants and the injury of no less than 17 other guests. The event naturally "received" wide media exposure, and gave rise (after an investigation) to five indictments filed against:
The lighting manager in the hall who installed the lighting fixture without any professional experience in the field.
A worker who was installing the facility that collapsed.
The construction engineer who signed the safety certificate.
Two of the owners of the place.
The Rehovot Magistrate's Court handed down the verdicts against the five in May-June, and heavy sentences were imposed on those responsible. Including a 10-month prison sentence for the engineer, for his conviction for negligent homicide (Section 304 of the Penal Law, 1977) and negligent damage (Section 341 of the Law).
By: Miri Levhar, VP, Itzick Simon - the leading construction insurance agency
Negligence by engineers and planners can cause not only the death of workers at a construction site, but also harm to people from the community who arrive at the site afterwards.
This is, for example, the tragic story of Mr. Yavne's wedding night, when at the height of the party the central lighting fixture in the event hall collapsed. This resulted in the death of one of the celebrants and the injury of no less than 17 other guests. The event naturally "received" wide media exposure, and gave rise (after an investigation) to five indictments filed against:
- The lighting manager in the hall who installed the lighting fixture without any professional experience in the field.
- A worker who was installing the facility that collapsed.
- The construction engineer who signed the safety certificate.
- Two of the owners of the place.
The Rehovot Magistrate's Court handed down the verdicts against the five in May-June, and heavy sentences were imposed on those responsible. Including a 10-month prison sentence for the engineer, for his conviction for negligent homicide (Section 304 of the Penal Law, 1977) and negligent damage (Section 341 of the Law).
The source of the engineer's negligence
The court convicted the engineer by virtue of his responsibility as a structural engineer, who provided the safety certificate for all of the lighting fixtures in the hall, including the fixture that collapsed. The verdict determined that the engineer "deviated significantly from the standard of conduct required of a structural engineer" (T.A. 35202-10-16).
The deviation is reflected in the fact that the defendant, who did not conduct a proper inspection of the specific facility, signed a certificate stating that there was no danger from the lighting facilities. It was found that he did not explicitly state that the certificate did not include the central facility and/or its dynamic parts. Likewise, the engineer did not warn of the need for an inspection by a qualified inspector and/or an inspection by a mechanical engineer.
The court also criticized the engineer's versions regarding his involvement in the incident, and the fact that the latter gave no less than six versions at different times.
"If he had not deviated from the norm of appropriate behavior, permission would not have been given to the facility and in any case the facility would not have been activated, would not have collapsed, and would not have led to the death of the deceased and the injury of 17 other people," the verdict stated.
The court reviewed the range of punishments used in Israel for this type of negligent death. It was noted that although until recently it was not customary to easily impose prison sentences in cases of this type, in recent years there has been a certain change in sentencing policy.
A change that aims to express the need to set an appropriate punishment threshold for offenses that resulted in the killing of human life and/or bodily harm, even when the defendants are normative professionals with no criminal record.
"There is a need to outline a punishment policy that not only reflects the personal circumstances of the defendants but also the overall public interest, as expressed in the principle of adequacy in the Penal Code," the verdict states.
The sometimes short distance between negligence and causing death by negligence
The verdict is another example of how strict adherence to safety in the construction industry does not only apply to the actual work, but also to the use that will be made of the building and its various facilities on the day after delivery. The responsibility of planners (such as engineers, architects and civil engineers) does not end with the completion of the work, and can "accompany" them for many years to come. It can also be clearly seen that the distance between negligence and causing death by negligence, and hence to actual imprisonment, is not necessarily great.
The court convicted the engineer by virtue of his responsibility as a structural engineer, who provided the safety certificate for all of the lighting fixtures in the hall, including the fixture that collapsed. The verdict determined that the engineer "deviated significantly from the standard of conduct required of a structural engineer" (T.A. 35202-10-16). The deviation is reflected in the fact that the defendant, who did not conduct a proper inspection of the specific facility, signed a certificate stating that there was no danger from the lighting facilities. It was found that he did not explicitly state that the certificate did not include the central facility and/or its dynamic parts. Likewise, the engineer did not warn of the need for an inspection by a qualified inspector and/or an inspection by a mechanical engineer. The court also criticized the engineer's versions regarding his involvement in the incident, and the fact that the latter gave no less than six versions at different times.
"If he had not deviated from the norm of appropriate behavior, permission would not have been given to the facility and in any case the facility would not have been activated, would not have collapsed, and would not have led to the death of the deceased and the injury of 17 other people," the verdict stated.
The court reviewed the range of punishments used in Israel for this type of negligent death. It was noted that although until recently it was not customary to easily impose prison sentences in cases of this type, in recent years there has been a certain change in sentencing policy. A change that aims to express the need to set an appropriate punishment threshold for offenses that resulted in the killing of human life and/or bodily harm, even when the defendants are normative professionals with no criminal record. "There is a need to outline a punishment policy that not only reflects the personal circumstances of the defendants but also the overall public interest, as expressed in the principle of adequacy in the Penal Code," the verdict states.
The sometimes short distance between negligence and causing death by negligence The verdict is another example of how strict adherence to safety in the construction industry does not only apply to the actual work, but also to the use that will be made of the building and its various facilities on the day after delivery. The responsibility of planners (such as engineers, architects and civil engineers) does not end with the completion of the work, and can "accompany" them for many years to come. It can also be clearly seen that the distance between negligence and causing death by negligence, and hence to actual imprisonment, is not necessarily great.
Can product liability insurance help?
After presenting the significance for the planning engineer, we will briefly touch on the liability that the executing contractor may have, who is also exposed to criminal indictments in cases of this type.
More specifically, can the contractor purchase insurance coverage in advance that will help him deal with criminal proceedings? This is especially true when the legal defense expenses in such dramatic indictments can be extremely high.
The answer lies in purchasing a product liability policy with appropriate liability limits. A product liability policy, when purchased professionally and skillfully, includes various extensions that relate, among other things, to cases such as personal injury and defense expenses in administrative and/or criminal proceedings.
Please note that a product liability policy is based on the "date of claim made." That is, in order for the policy to be valid and provide the necessary insurance coverage, it must be in effect both at the time of delivery of the building and at the time of the event (accident). We note that insofar as it is a product liability policy purchased by a planner (such as an engineer), the date of the event is not necessarily the actual moment of the accident, but the date of planning/approval. If we return to the ruling we reviewed above, if the engineer had product liability insurance, the validity of the insurance would depend on its purchase before the lighting fixture was approved, and not on the moment it fell at the wedding.
After presenting the significance for the planning engineer, we will briefly touch on the liability that the executing contractor may have, who is also exposed to criminal indictments in cases of this type.
More specifically, can the contractor purchase insurance coverage in advance that will help him deal with criminal proceedings? This is especially true when the legal defense expenses in such dramatic indictments can be extremely high. The answer lies in purchasing a product liability policy with appropriate liability limits. A product liability policy, when purchased professionally and skillfully, includes various extensions that relate, among other things, to cases such as personal injury and defense expenses in administrative and/or criminal proceedings.
Please note that a product liability policy is based on the "date of claim made." That is, in order for the policy to be valid and provide the necessary insurance coverage, it must be in effect both at the time of delivery of the building and at the time of the event (accident). We note that insofar as it is a product liability policy purchased by a planner (such as an engineer), the date of the event is not necessarily the actual moment of the accident, but the date of planning/approval. If we return to the ruling we reviewed above, if the engineer had product liability insurance, the validity of the insurance would depend on its purchase before the lighting fixture was approved, and not on the moment it fell at the wedding.
מסמכים
