Case Number
CA 3510/99
Date Decided
8-6-2001
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: On August 30, 1995, while the appellant was waiting for a bus at an Egged bus station, the respondent no. 2 and his friends beat up the appellant. Passersby came to the appellant’s aid but he suffered serious injuries and required hospitalization. Respondent no. 2 was convicted in the Magistrates Court in Jerusalem of an offense according to section 380 of the Penal Law 5737-1977. The appellant filed a lawsuit against Egged and respondent no. 2 for damages, claiming against Egged negligence and breach of a statutory duty. The Magistrates Court summarily dismissed the appellant’s lawsuit for failure to show a claim. The appellant is appealing this decision.
Held: It was not appropriate to summarily dismiss the appellant’s lawsuit without weighing the factual and legal claims and the question of liability in torts for the failure to take precautionary measures to prevent a criminal act that was committed by a third party. In the Court’s view the fact that the occurrence of an attack was spontaneous and unprovoked does not instantly remove it from the realm of tort liability. At this stage in the proceedings, and before the necessary determinations have been made, it was not appropriate to determine that the incident at the Central Bus Station was unforeseeable, and it would not be appropriate to say that as a question of legal policy, the respondent is exempt from undertaking any precautionary measures in order to prevent such criminal activity. Rather, the lower court needs to examine the specific circumstances of the case. The Court also determined that it was not appropriate for the District Court at this stage in the proceedings to make the determination that even if there was negligent conduct on Egged’s part, in failure to place a security person, there was no causal connection between the negligent conduct and the harm to the appellant. Therefore the appeal was granted, the decision of the lower court was overturned and the case was returned to the District Court to be determined on the merits.
Keywords
Administrative Law -- Discretion, Torts -- Breach of statutory duty, Torts -- Negligence
