A woman in her fifties from Kiryat Bialik walked from her home to her place of work, came across and was hit hard on the ground following Hot’s communication pit, and was distributed NIS 350,000.
The letter of claim submitted by attorney Lidor Fogel-Oren from Lavi, Efrat & Co. to the Haifa Magistrate’s Court states that R. was badly injured following an open communication pit of the “Hot” company, which could not be seen because it was covered with a puddle of rainwater. .
R. was badly injured in all parts of her body and especially in her legs, and needed a number of surgeries and medical procedures for a long period of time. So far, R. suffers from a severe functional limitation in both her knees and has difficulty performing daily activities.
In addition to the National Insurance Institute’s lawsuit due to a work accident, additional lawsuits were filed against the Kiryat Bialik municipality and against the communications company Hot, which placed the hazard it owned in the accident area. Therefore, the two bodies bore joint responsibility for the accident and will each pay about NIS 100,000.
Attorney Vogel-Oren: “An accident that occurred while working or on the way to work will be recognized as a work accident according to the law. In these cases, the injured party is entitled to compensation from the person for whom the accident occurred and is also entitled to compensation from the National Insurance Institute.”
As part of the management of the case in the court, R.’s disability was determined at a rate of 19% permanently, and as stated, after a lengthy negotiation procedure and hearings within the walls of the court, she was compensated by NIS 340,000.
Advocate Fogel-Oren added: “It is of great importance that an injured person who is injured as a result of a safety hazard will photograph the said hazard immediately after the accident. If the person responsible for the hazard repairs the hazard after the accident, as happened in this case, it is no less important to photograph the scene of the accident after the repair, since repairing such a hazard constitutes the plaintiff’s admission of negligence. ”
And another thing: “Often the victim comes agitated and in pain to the attending physician and in their innocence do not indicate that they fell as a result of a pothole in the sidewalk or any other hazard and this may constitute an obstacle during the management of the claim.”