Landmark Road Accident Ruling: Fall While Alighting From a Bus

By: Attorney Michael Lev

Significant Road Accident Ruling: Fall While Alighting From a Bus

In a ruling handed down by the Bat Yam Magistrates Court (case t”a 21700-12-22) before Judge Shari Sander-Mekubar, important principles were established regarding entitlement to compensation when falling from a public vehicle. At our firm, we view this ruling as a guiding precedent for determining the temporal limits of a “road accident” under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Ordinance (MVIO). The case involved a plaintiff injured while alighting from a bus when her left foot slipped into a pothole on the road, raising fundamental questions about the causal connection between the journey and the fall.

The key point emphasized in the ruling is this: the existence of an external hazard in the road environment does not automatically negate the entitlement to compensation under the MVIO, as long as the fall occurred during the alighting process from the vehicle, before it was fully completed, and the transport operator’s liability still applied.

What Happened: The Plaintiff’s Version and Competing Versions

On October 11, 2021, the plaintiff was injured while alighting from Egged bus route 76. According to her account, while stepping off the bus, her left foot entered a pothole that was in the road. Her right foot was still on the bus step. This situation caused her to twist her ankle, and she fell forward, sustaining bodily injuries.

The defendants’ version was different: Egged and the vehicle insurer. According to their claim, the plaintiff had already completed her alighting from the bus before the fall, and the fall itself occurred a step or two away from there. On this basis, they argued there was no causal connection between the journey and the fall, and therefore no entitlement to compensation under the MVIO.

At our firm we regularly deal with factual disputes of this kind concerning the precise sequence of events leading to an accident. In this context, rapid collection of evidence and detailed documentation of the circumstances of the accident are critical.

What the Court Had to Answer

The court was required to address two main types of issues. First: does a fall occurring during alighting from a vehicle, when the injured party has not yet fully completed the alighting, constitute a “road accident” under the MVIO? Second: does the existence of an external hazard on the road, such as a pothole, sever the causal connection between the journey and the accident?

These questions deal with the depth of the definition of “road accident” and its limits. At our firm, we are particularly interested in the point at which a person ceases to be a “passenger” for the purpose of compensation entitlement, and what boundary the legislator sets in this regard. The ruling before us illuminates many aspects of this question.

The topic is especially relevant today, in an era when public transport is an inseparable part of many families’ lives in Israel. Accidents during boarding or alighting from public vehicles are not rare, and rulings on the matter affect the rights of millions of daily commuters.

How the Court Determined the Facts

The court accepted the claim and ruled that the fall was a road accident under the MVIO. Judge Shari Sander-Mekubar accepted the plaintiff’s version, according to which she was injured while alighting from the bus when her right foot was still inside it.

The court highlighted three key conditions that must be met simultaneously: full completion of alighting from the bus, severing contact with the vehicle, and gaining stable standing. As long as these three conditions had not all been met, the fall was considered a road accident.

Regarding the defendants’ claim that the road hazard severed the causal link, the court rejected this expressly. It ruled that the fall occurred “in the course of and as a result of the plaintiff’s alighting from the bus, and also due to the existence of the hazard on the road, without that hazard severing the causal link.”

At our firm we view this ruling as a balanced approach. On one hand, it protects the rights of the injured, and on the other, it does not extend further than necessary the liability of transport operators. The court clarified that an external hazard does not automatically negate the connection to the journey, as long as a clear temporal and causal link exists.

What the Ruling Means

The ruling establishes an important principle in the field of road accidents: the alighting stage from a vehicle is a continuation of the journey itself, as long as it has not been fully completed. This principle rests on the understanding that alighting from a vehicle is an integral part of the journey, not an immediate cessation of the risk at the moment the vehicle stops.

The innovation argued in the ruling relates to the treatment of an external cause. The court ruled that a hazard in the road environment (such as a pothole) does not sever the causal link to the journey. This approach is grounded in the understanding that passengers are exposed to the risks of the road environment also during alighting, and this exposure is a direct consequence of the journey.

From a practical standpoint, the ruling broadens the protection of public transport users and ensures that the liability of the driver and transport operator does not end the moment the bus stops. To our knowledge, this development in case law serves the broad public that relies on public transport in daily life.

The ruling also sets a clear test: alighting is complete only when the passenger has fully completed the alighting, severed contact with the vehicle, and gained stable standing. All three conditions must be met simultaneously, and as long as one of them is not met, the passenger is still considered “on the vehicle” for purposes of the MVIO.

Implications for Passengers and Transport Operators

This ruling has wide-ranging implications for millions of public transport users in Israel. It clarifies that passengers who have suffered similar accidents are entitled to compensation under the MVIO, even when external factors contributed to the accident.

On the side of public transport operators, the ruling imposes broader liability to ensure the safety of passengers also at the alighting stage. They must ensure stops are in safe locations, maintain regular maintenance of road surfaces around stops, and also add required safety measures to help passengers alight safely.

For attorneys specializing in road accidents, the ruling provides significant legal tools for arguing in similar cases. It clarifies that claims cannot be dismissed merely because of the existence of external causes, but the causal and temporal connection between the journey and the accident must be examined on its merits.

For victims of similar accidents, we recommend seeking legal advice without delay, even where external factors appear to create difficulties. This ruling proves it is possible to succeed even in cases that appear complex, as long as there is proper legal preparation and professional representation. For additional guidance on traffic accident topics, visit our guides page.

It is important to remember that early collection of evidence is critical. Documenting the road condition, photographs of the accident scene, police reports and ambulance records, and receiving immediate medical treatment, can all significantly influence the outcome of the case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is every fall while alighting from a bus considered a road accident?

Not always. According to the ruling, a fall is considered a road accident only if it occurred before the alighting was completed, before contact with the vehicle was severed, and before stable standing was achieved. As long as one of these conditions had not been met, the fall will still be considered an accident. In any case, a careful examination of the specific circumstances is required to determine whether a claim can be filed. At our firm, we examine each case with care and depth.

What happens when a pothole on the road caused the fall?

According to the ruling, a hazard on the road such as a pothole does not automatically sever the causal connection to the journey. As long as the fall occurred during alighting from the vehicle and because of the hazard, it can still be defined as a road accident. The matter depends on the full details of the case. It is important in such cases to collect evidence about the road condition and detailed documentation of the sequence of events.

How much time is there to file a claim after the accident?

Under the MVIO, the claim must be filed within 3 years from the date of the accident or the date of discovery of the injury. Even so, it is worthwhile to seek legal advice as soon as possible. Preserving the case and collecting evidence require considerable time. At our firm, we encourage immediate contact after the accident, while medical recovery is still ongoing, to ensure proper preservation of the injured party’s rights.

How do we prove that the fall occurred during alighting from the vehicle?

This is one of the biggest challenges in such cases. Reliance on witness testimony, photographic documentation of the accident scene, police and ambulance reports, and also any available CCTV footage is needed. At our firm we have extensive experience managing cases of this type, and we know how to collect and organize evidence in a way that will be persuasive to the court.

What level of compensation in such cases?

The total compensation depends on a number of factors: the severity of the injury, the age of the injured party, the impact on work capacity, and more. Compensation can include medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and impairment of functional capacity. In serious injuries, compensation can reach significant sums. At our firm, we prepare a thorough assessment of all the damages and work to achieve the highest possible compensation. Everything depends on the meticulous preparation of the case and professional accompanying.

Summary and Recommendations

The ruling in case t”a 21700-12-22 marks a significant development in the field of road accidents, particularly regarding accidents in public transport. It ensures that passengers’ rights are protected also at the alighting stage and that external factors do not automatically negate the entitlement to compensation.

At our firm we are pleased to see in this ruling an opportunity to anchor the rights of the travelling public and ensure full compensation for accident victims. The ruling provides solid legal tools to deal with complex cases and clarifies principles that would be significant for future claimants.

We call on anyone injured in a similar accident not to waive their rights and to seek professional legal advice. Even in cases that raise a feeling of complexity or uncertainty, it is possible that there is an entitlement to compensation under current case law.

Request free advice now – our team of experts stands ready to examine the case and guide clients on all matters relating to road accidents and compensation claims.

The information above does not constitute legal advice. Contact our office for personalized guidance.