Do you know that you are being shot at and you continue to drive and have an accident?

There is no limit to insolence.

The driver of the offending vehicle continued to drive even though he was shot and collided with a truck, the insurance company claimed the truck had a contributory fault, as it was with two wheels on the sidewalk.

Troll in court

Walla! Car

27/04/2022

Wednesday, 27 April 2022, 07:12 Updated: 08:39

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

• Share on general

• Comments

  Comments

November 2017, early morning;

A driver was sitting in the cab of a garbage truck that was standing on the side of an inner road in the town of Jisr a-Zarqa, when suddenly a tiny bus came in front and hit it in the front.

The driver says that he went down to help the injured vehicle, recognized gunshots at the driver's door and noticed that the bus driver was unconscious.

He called for help, and an MDA drive told him he was impressed. The tiny bus driver lost control and hit him

. He left home to work as a shuttle driver when he was suddenly hit by gunfire in the direction of his vehicle. , Which created a significant time and distance gap between the shooting and the scene of the accident.

More on Walla!

Combination Insurance Fraud: This is how you do it

To the full article

The insurance company that insures the minibus has waived its responsibility and claimed that it does not have to pay for the damages caused to the parked vehicle.

In the written defense, she stated that the reason for this was the circumstances that preceded the accident in which the driver was shot, who, as he recalled while escaping from the shooting scene, lost consciousness and hit the truck.

In these circumstances, it was argued that the provisions of section 64 of the Torts Ordinance apply since the shooting could not have been anticipated, and the blame lies with the shooters, and they have led to the decisive cause of the damage.

In fact, she argued that the shooting constituted an "interfering foreign factor" that severed the causal link between the driver's negligence and the accident, and she was exempt from compensation.

The anchor for this, she claims, is the rule in tort law that no one will be held liable if another person's fault was the decisive cause of the damage.

It was also alleged that there was a contributing culprit of the truck light so it was parked with two wheels on the sidewalk.

"The time difference and the distance between the scene of the shooting and the scene of the accident does not justify exempting the driver from liability" (Photo: Yoav Itiel)

Attorney Warsaw: "The driver's negligence was in his choice to continue driving" (Photo: Regev Kalaf)

And what did the court rule?

"The time difference and the distance between the scene of the shooting and the scene of the accident in the common sense test does not justify exempting the driver from liability, since his choice to drive in the situation he was in was the cause of the accident," noted Judge Ido Kafkafi.

According to him, although it is not clear that a driver should expect shooting, he should expect factors that may interfere with driving.

He further stated that if the vehicle had deviated due to the shooting and hit a vehicle parked at the scene of the shooting itself, the applicability of the exception to the liability of a "foreign factor intervening" could have been argued.

However, in the circumstances of the case, in which the driver chose to continue driving, far beyond the need to get out of the danger range of the shooting, it was precisely his negligent behavior that caused the accident and it could not be determined that the shooting was the decisive cause of damage.

In light of all this, the court ruled that the driver of the minibus was negligently responsible for the accident, and as a result, it was his insurance company that would cover the damages caused to the truck by virtue of third party liability insurance.

These amounted to NIS 122,827 for the damage to the truck, in addition to NIS 5,352 for the appraiser's fees and attorney's fees of NIS 15,000.

Advocate Assaf Warsaw, co-chair of the Torts Forum, an expert in insurance law, explains that the driver's negligence was in his choice to continue driving an unreasonable distance after being shot, with this decision being the one that created the traffic risk and led to the accident.

"The court explicitly wrote that 'although the conduct of a person after a shooting should not be scrutinized, his testimony shows that after the shooting he was fully conscious, and even consciously decided to continue driving to his parents' house, despite his injuries.' "As a result, he later lost consciousness due to the shooting."

"Although the shooting was the first ring in the chain of circumstances that led to the accident, the accident occurred due to the driver's negligence in choosing to continue driving in this situation."

• vehicle

• Law and insurance

Tags

• truck

• Insurance

• Court

• Insurance Company