כך נפלו גיבורים
Oct 29, 2021
By: Adv. Shlomi Hadar - John Geva, Hadar & Co. - lawyers and mediators
background
Recently, the Haifa Magistrate's Court (hon. Judge Ahsan Kanaan) discussed two consolidated lawsuits, concerning bodily injuries caused to the 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 what is alleged in the lawsuit, the accident occurred in 2015, when the plaintiffs were in a lifting basket attached to a truck crane. Your stay in the crane basket was as part of the construction of an industrial building, for the purpose of installing the cladding panels of 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 the Harel company. Therefore, the lawsuits were filed against her and against the operator of the crane in accordance with the provisions of the law on compensation for victims of road accidents (hereinafter: " the law on compensation "). In addition, the claim was directed against additional defendants, on an alternate basis, according to the Tort Ordinance, in case it is determined that the accident was not a car accident.
The legal question
The court is required to decide on the question of whether the incident that is the subject of the lawsuit constitutes a traffic accident as defined in the compensation law.
The legal hearing
First, the court stood on 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 - an event; bodily harm; heel; use; in a motor vehicle; for transportation purposes.
If one or more of the aforementioned elements were not met, the judge will not proceed with the claim as defined in the compensation law, but the court will turn to the second stage, where 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 positive, then it is a car accident. In the third and final step, the court will examine whether it is a "diminishing" possession, which excludes the event from the definition of a car accident.
Applying the law to the case
In the case before us, the court noted that there was no real dispute between the parties that the use of disconnecting a part of a vehicle took place. However, it was determined in the ruling that the existence of this occurrence alone is not enough to determine that it 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 ruled that there were several circumstances that led to the conclusion that the requirement of "transportation purposes" was met. First , the truck's 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 lifted 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 fulfilling the requirement of "transportation purposes". Thirdly , it was proven that the work as a whole was intended to cover an industrial building with Iskurit panels, as well as to cover the roof of the building. The court ruled that there was a movement of the basket from point to point across the same side with the help of the lever arm.
The court also added that the "utilization of mechanical power" presumption also existed in the case in question, since the accident occurred when the basket was being lifted using the mechanical power of the vehicle. Without using the aforementioned mechanical force, the basket could not be lifted.
Furthermore, the court ruled that there was a factual causal connection, and a legal causal connection between the disconnection of the truck basket, and the bodily injuries that were caused to the plaintiffs, since the disconnection occurred during the lifting operation.
If the disconnection was caused while lifting, then the mechanical force exerted a load on the arms of the basket and the hangers and therefore caused, together with the engineering failure, the disconnection of the basket. Therefore, the risk test was carried out with regard to the application of the mechanical force.
Also, 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 holding the basket.
result
In light of the above, the court determined that the aforementioned accident incident amounts 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 notices to the third party submitted against the other parties were rejected.
The verdict was given on August 5, 2021.
מסמכים
