On October 28, 2020, a ten-year-old boy left his home in a neighborhood in Tamra for the local grocery store. On his way back, he walked along a sloped, unpaved path located just 10 to 15 meters from his home. According to family members' testimony, the path was full of "dirt, iron bars, trees, all kinds of things there."
The boy tripped on a stone and fell forward. During the fall, a piece of wood from a severed branch thrown at the edge of the path penetrated his right eye. His aunt and grandfather, who live nearby, heard his screams and rushed to the scene. He was evacuated by ambulance to Rambam Hospital and admitted to the ophthalmology department, where he was diagnosed with a severe corneal laceration. In the two years following the accident, the boy underwent six surgeries, including an urgent operation following a retinal detachment. In late 2023, it was determined that his right eye was in a state of atrophy, completely blind, and suffering from strabismus (squinting outward), with his weighted medical disability set at 38.5%.
The municipality disclaimed its responsibility
Following the accident, a personal injury lawsuit was filed with the Haifa District Court against the Tamra Municipality through the minor's parents. The lawsuit alleged that the municipality is responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure, paths, and roads within its jurisdiction, including in the neighborhood where the plaintiff resides, and that the path was in the stages of paving and work, in a state that was "completely unsafe," and strewn with potholes, stones, rocks, garbage, and severed wood pieces.
The municipality denied its liability and the circumstances of the incident. It claimed that the plaintiff did not prove how he fell, as the statement of claim generally described numerous obstacles, and only in an affidavit submitted years later did the specific stone appear for the first time. According to its claim, this constituted a withheld version – a factual assertion raised by a party at a late stage of the trial without having been mentioned at the first opportunity.
Consequently, the court ought to treat it with great suspicion, as it might be considered a hindsight fabrication. Furthermore, the defense relied on initial medical records, in which the ophthalmologist noted that it was unknown how the injury occurred. Alternatively, it claimed decisive contributory negligence on the part of the victim.
Court: 'The defendant did not lift a finger'
Judge Ibrahim Boulos rejected most of the municipality's claims and accepted the arguments of the victim's attorney, Advocate Rajab Othman, relying on a photograph of the path attached to the case file, noting that "there is nothing better than the sight of one's eyes." He determined that "this is the state of the path on which the plaintiff fell – a dangerous condition, a sloped, highly disrupted path full of rocks and additional hazards that is unsuitable even for careful walking." According to him, "the state of the path speaks for itself," and the municipality's negligence "is sharpened in light of the fact, proven before me, that this state of affairs has existed for a long time, yet the defendant did not lift a finger and did not act to remove the obstacles, repair the path, and prepare it for safe passage, nor to block and fence it until the completion of the work."
Regarding the change in version, the judge ruled that this was a clarification and refinement rather than a withheld version, placing weight on the victim's young age. "A child cannot be expected to describe a traumatic event in terms, detail, and accuracy, or in a manner characteristic of an adult," he wrote, accepting his testimony that he tripped on a stone. He attributed the initial medical entry to the father, who was not present at the scene, whereas the discharge summary itself documented an injury from a tree branch.
The third-party notice against the parents was also dismissed. The judge ruled that "it is unreasonable to expect parents to accompany and supervise a child of the plaintiff's age from the moment he leaves until his return home, and even more so during his stay in the immediate vicinity of his residence," adding that accepting the municipality's position "would lead to an undesirable expansion of the duty of supervision." The claim of contributory negligence was accepted only in part and set at 15%, due to the boy's testimony that he was walking at a fast pace along a path he knew well.
In the bottom line, the Tamra Municipality was ordered to pay total compensation of NIS 1,709,698 after deducting contributory negligence, plus attorney's fees at the rate of 20% plus VAT, and legal expenses of NIS 15,000.
Advocate Asaf Warsha, co-chairman of the Courts Committee of the Bar Association and an expert in torts and insurance law, explains the significance of the ruling: "The practical significance relates to the focus of the inquiry. As long as the decision depends on the question of what exactly the victim tripped on, the authority has room to defend itself through discrepancies in the version, lack of eyewitnesses, and initial medical records. The court indicated a different direction, ruling that its conclusion would not have changed even had it not been proven what caused the trip. The reason for this is that in this case, the severe injury was not caused by the trip, but by the severed branch left on the path – meaning a hazard for which the municipality is responsible in any event. By this, the center of gravity shifts from the precise reconstruction of the moment of the fall to the question of what the authority did about the hazard and when, particularly whether it refrained from simple and inexpensive measures such as fencing."