Contractor's responsibility at a construction site: Obligation to supervise and ensure safety when working at height
Jan 30, 2026
From: Adv. John Geva
Case Details and Nature of the Claim
The judgment was delivered on January 19, 2026, at the Rehovot Magistrate’s Court by the Honorable Judge, Vice President René Hirsch, in case number 26361-03-22. The case concerns a personal injury claim for severe bodily harm sustained by Mr. H.M. (hereinafter: “the plaintiff”), a Jordanian citizen holding a work visa, following a fall from scaffolding during aluminum installation work at a construction site in Holon.
The claim was filed against Naot Halevi Rishon LeZion Development Ltd. (hereinafter: “the defendant”), which acted as the developer and site manager where reinforcement work was carried out as part of a Tama project. The National Insurance Institute (hereinafter: “NII”) joined the proceedings in a subrogation claim for benefits paid to the plaintiff after the incident was recognized as a workplace accident.
The plaintiff was represented by his attorney, Adv. Amir Schneider; the NII was represented by Adv. Amit Segev; and the defendant was represented by Adv. Galit Goren. The central dispute in the case revolved around whether the incident occurred on the defendant’s site, the question of the conceptual and specific liability of a developer in the absence of a main contractor, and the issue of allocation of responsibility between the client and the professional personnel employed on the site.
The factual background and circumstances of the accident
On January 22, 2017, the plaintiff was working at a construction site managed by the defendant in Holon. The plaintiff was employed by an aluminum contractor named Ibrahim, who performed installation work for developers and contractors. According to the plaintiff’s version, while he was taking measurements or carrying out installations on scaffolding at a high floor, he lost his balance and fell from the scaffolding toward a balcony or a lower floor.
The plaintiff claimed that the scaffolding at the site was in poor condition, unstable, and dangerous, and that essential protective equipment such as safety harnesses or anchoring and restraint systems was not provided to him, despite the fact that he was working at a significant height. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff was seriously injured and suffered multiple and comminuted fractures to his wrist, which required surgery and fixation.
During the proceedings, contradictions emerged in the plaintiff’s accounts regarding the exact floor from which he fell and the time at which the incident occurred. The defendant, for its part, initially denied any connection to the plaintiff or to the incident, claiming that it did not know the plaintiff and that he had never worked at a site on its behalf. However, during witness examinations, the defendant’s representative admitted that the site shown in the photographs submitted by the plaintiff was indeed the company’s work site at the relevant time.
Plaintiff: Claimed that the defendant, as the developer and actual construction contractor, owed him a conceptual and concrete duty of care to ensure the safety of the work site. In his opinion, the defendant violated statutory duties by failing to appoint a qualified foreman and by failing to supervise the installation of standard scaffolding and safety measures to prevent falls from heights. The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant is the "addressee" responsible for compensating his damages as a joint tortfeasor, even if he chose not to sue his direct employer.
The defendant: denied the circumstances of the accident and claimed that the plaintiff did not meet the required burden of proof, while pointing to material contradictions in the medical documentation and the witnesses' versions. On the legal level, the defendant claimed that there was no employee-employer relationship between her and the plaintiff and that the responsibility for the worker's safety lies exclusively with the employing contractor. It was further argued that to the extent liability is determined, the plaintiff should be held to be a decisive contributory fault, since he worked independently and was aware of the risks at the site.
The National Security Council: argued in the restitution claim that since it recognized the accident as a work accident and paid the plaintiff benefits, the defendant must compensate him for these amounts. The National Security Council joined the plaintiff's claims regarding the defendant's negligence in maintaining the site and the lack of supervision of work at height.
The parties' claims
The court partially accepted the claim, determining that the defendant bears responsibility for the incident, but placed the bulk of the moral blame on the professional level.
Determining the circumstances of the accident and judicial silence: Despite the contradictions in the plaintiff's version, Judge Hirsch ruled that the core of the version – a fall from scaffolding on the site – was proven on the balance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's initial version at the hospital and before the MDA was consistent and that it is difficult to assume that a worker who does not speak the language would come up with a sophisticated version while in pain. A crucial point was the defendant's admission in a previous proceeding in the Labor Court, where she accepted the plaintiff's testimony regarding his actual work on the site, which created a "judicial silence" that prevents her from denying this fact now.
However, the court ruled that because the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving the cause of the fall, it cannot be determined that the fall was caused by a defect in the scaffolding itself, or by another factor. This determination does not alter the conclusion that the plaintiff fell while on scaffolding, and the injury was the result of working at height without proper safety and restraint.
The duty of care of the client and the developer: The court ruled that the defendant is considered a "construction operator" under the occupational safety regulations, as it did not prove the appointment of another main contractor. In the absence of the appointment of a registered foreman, the defendant is responsible for ensuring that the safety instructions are observed on the site. It was determined that employing a worker at height without protective equipment, harnesses or restraints constitutes a breach of statutory duty and gross negligence.
The issue of damages and wage base: On the issue of damages, the court adopted the opinion of the court's expert and determined that the plaintiff had a weighted medical disability of 19.25% for the injury to the wrist and scars. The functional disability and the reduction in earning capacity were set at 15%, taking into account that this was a non-dominant hand but one that affects a manual worker. Due to the lack of reports to the tax authorities and pay slips, the court determined a reduced wage base of NIS 5,241 (as of today), based on data from the National Labor Relations Board.
Division of liability and contributory fault: This is the most essential part of the ruling. The court examined the division of liability between the client (defendant) and the direct employer and the plaintiff herself. It was determined that according to Section 331 of the National Insurance Law, in a third-party claim, the amount of compensation will be reduced by the employer's liability. The judge noted that the professional level – the direct contractor and the plaintiff (who was classified as independent) – bears the primary responsibility for the individual safety of the work. Therefore, the employer/plaintiff was held 75% liable, and the defendant was held only 25% liable for its failure to provide overall supervision and for failing to appoint a foreman.
The court's decision and the essential reasons
Summary and conclusion
The court ruled that the total damages suffered by the plaintiff amount to ₪328,000. In light of the allocation of responsibility, the defendant was ordered to pay 25% of this amount, i.e., ₪82,000. Of this sum, it was determined that 75% will be paid to the NII under the subrogation claim, and 25% will be paid directly to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay attorney’s fees at a rate of 23.6% and legal costs.
This judgment clarifies the boundaries of liability for developers and clients at construction sites. It makes clear that even in the absence of direct employment relationships, a developer cannot disclaim statutory safety obligations, particularly when no professional supervisory body has been appointed. However, the court sends a clear message that the ultimate moral and tort liability remains with the professional personnel performing the work on-site.
The use of res judicata in this case serves as a warning to insurance companies and defendants involved in parallel proceedings, highlighting the importance of consistency in factual arguments across different courts.
As of the time of writing, no appeal has been filed with the District Court.
מסמכים
