This is how heroes fell
Oct 29, 2021
From: Attorney Shlomi Hadar - John Geva, Hadar & Co. - Lawyers and Mediators
background
Recently, the Haifa Magistrate's Court (Honorable Justice Ahsan Kanaan) heard two consolidated lawsuits, concerning personal injuries suffered by workers due to an accident during which the lifting basket, in which the two were, detached from the arm of a crane and fell to the ground.
According to the lawsuit, the accident occurred in 2015, when the plaintiffs were in a lifting basket attached to a truck crane. They were in the crane basket during the construction of an industrial building, for the purpose of installing the cladding panels for that building. The plaintiffs claimed that the basket broke off while being lifted to a height.
At the time of the accident, the truck to which the lifting basket was attached was insured by Harel. Therefore, claims were filed against it and against the crane operator in accordance with the provisions of the Road Accident Victims Compensation Law (hereinafter:
The legal question
The court is required to decide the question of whether the incident subject to the lawsuit constitutes a traffic accident within the meaning of the Compensation Law.
The legal debate
First, the court considered the definition of "traffic accident" as defined in Section 1 of the Compensation Law, and noted that in the first stage, it must examine whether the six elements of the basic definition of a traffic accident as defined in the law were met - event; bodily injury; due to; use; of a motor vehicle; for transportation purposes.
If one or more of the above elements are not met, the claim will not be dismissed as defined in the Compensation Law, but the court will proceed to the second stage, in which it will examine whether we are dealing with a case that falls under one of the "multiple" presumptions in the Compensation Law. If the answer is yes, then it is a traffic accident. In the third and final stage, the court will examine whether it is a "diminishing" presumption, which excludes the event from the definition of a traffic accident.
The legal question
The court is required to decide the question of whether the incident subject to the lawsuit constitutes a traffic accident within the meaning of the Compensation Law.
The legal debate
First, the court considered the definition of "traffic accident" as defined in Section 1 of the Compensation Law, and noted that in the first stage, it must examine whether the six elements of the basic definition of a traffic accident as defined in the law were met - event; bodily injury; due to; use; of a motor vehicle; for transportation purposes.
If one or more of the above elements are not met, the claim will not be dismissed as defined in the Compensation Law, but the court will proceed to the second stage, in which it will examine whether we are dealing with a case that falls under one of the "multiple" presumptions in the Compensation Law. If the answer is yes, then it is a traffic accident. In the third and final stage, the court will examine whether it is a "diminishing" presumption, which excludes the event from the definition of a traffic accident.
Application of the law to the case
In the case before us, the court noted that there was no real dispute between the parties as to whether the use of a part of a vehicle was used. However, the ruling determined that the occurrence of this occurrence alone is not sufficient to determine that this is a traffic accident in accordance with the Compensation Law, and the question of whether the requirement of "transportation purposes" is met must be discussed.
The court determined that there were several circumstances that led to the conclusion that the requirement of "transportation purposes" was met. First , the truck engine was running at the time of the accident, since at that time the basket was raised and was in motion. Second , the basket was in motion and it raised the plaintiffs from the ground to the point where the plaintiffs were supposed to work, and in this context, the ruling recognized the transportation of workers from point to point as meeting the requirement of "transportation purposes". Third , it was proven that the work as a whole was intended to cover an industrial building with iskoritic sheets, as well as to cover the roof of the building. The court determined that there was movement of the basket from point to point across the same side with the help of the crane arm.
The court further added that the presumption of "utilizing mechanical power" also held true in the case at hand, since the accident occurred when the basket was being lifted using the vehicle's mechanical power. Without the use of the aforementioned mechanical power, the basket could not have been lifted.
Furthermore, the court determined that there was a factual causal relationship and a legal causal relationship between the detachment of the truck basket and the bodily harm suffered by the plaintiffs, as the detachment occurred during the lifting operation.
If the disconnection occurred during the lift, then the mechanical force exerted a load on the basket arms and suspensions and therefore caused, together with the engineering failure, the basket to disconnect. Therefore, the risk test was met with regard to the application of the mechanical force.
Likewise, the mechanical force was not a negligible factor in the fall of the basket, but rather its cumulative action caused the "subduing" of the rods that held the basket.
Result
In light of the above, the court determined that the aforementioned accident amounted to a traffic accident, as defined in the Compensation Law, and the claim against the crane operator and against the insurance company was accepted, while the claims and third-party notices filed against the other parties were rejected.
The verdict was given on 05.08.2021.
Result
In light of the above, the court determined that the aforementioned accident amounted to a traffic accident, as defined in the Compensation Law, and the claim against the crane operator and against the insurance company was accepted, while the claims and third-party notices filed against the other parties were rejected.
The verdict was given on 05.08.2021.
מסמכים
