A ruling in recent days stated that a dentist, who runs a private clinic, must compensate a dentist who worked with him in the amount of NIS 1.35 million, after she caught fire and was burned while working.
According to the lawsuit, the incident took place at a well-known private dental clinic in the center of the country, when the plaintiff, while performing her job as an assistant to a dentist, was injured by a glass explosion (from any alcohol).
As a result of the explosion, the plaintiff suffered bodily injuries.
During the trial, the medic recounted the chain of events that changed her life: "I heated the facility on the work surface, and just as I turned to approach the doctor, a huge explosion occurred and after that I went up in flames that only intensified due to the combustion material in the facility."
Is the manufacturer to blame?
The medic, who still suffers from burns on her upper body, ceased to function as a self-employed person, was required to wear a pressure suit for two years and prolonged hospitalizations, and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The lawsuit was filed through Adv. Amikam Harlaf and Adv. Ran Al-Hadif, against the dentist who worked for him and against a supplier of medical equipment from the Triangle area, who sold the blister that exploded.
Adv. Harlap, photo: Harlap's office
As to the question of who is responsible for the damages, the employer, the dentist, disclaims any responsibility for the integrity of the equipment in his clinic, claiming that precisely because it has been proven that the device was not negligently used, it is a manufacturing defect and should not be held liable.
His cross-examination tipped the scales, and during a hearing with the plaintiff's lawyers, he said with a storm of emotion: "If the agent issues me an invoice as a dental agent, he must be checked by the relevant ministries. All allegations should be referred to the Ministry of Health."
Judge Idit Katzboy ruled in the verdict that the doctor's testimony "indicates that he trusted the supplier with his eyes closed and shied away from his responsibility for the safety of those staying in his clinic - the staff and the patients."
The judge further ruled that the medic's testimony indicates that the alcohol "exploded during routine use, and it is clear from this that the product was defective."
"Disclaimer"
Adv. Amikam Harlaf and Adv. Ran Elhadif stated in response to the verdict: dangerous.
"Accepting our claim that the supplier and the doctor are jointly and severally liable will allow the plaintiff to receive the payment from the insurance company immediately. "He should have taken full responsibility and compensated it fully and without any difficulties," the lawyers said.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we would love for you to share it with us