תוכן עניינים
By: Adv. Michael Lev
Comparative Negligence Compensation in Road Accidents: The Knowledge-in-Practice Requirement
The Supreme Court addressed an important ruling (CA 2853/96) on a central question in road accident compensation. At our office, we frequently encounter victims seeking fair compensation in cases related to vehicle operation by an unlicensed driver. In this ruling, the court established a key principle: for comparative compensation to be denied, the victim must have known in practice — not merely in theory — that the driver lacked a license.
What Happened in This Case
The plaintiff worked at a quarry company and used its vehicle as part of his job. On May 1, 1992, while at the village of Jisr al-Zarqa, he was called to approach his supervisor to come to his room. Because he was tired, he asked his colleague to drive the vehicle in his place. A road accident occurred along the way, and the plaintiff was injured.
Only after the accident did it emerge that the colleague had no driving license. The insurance company refused to pay compensation, claiming the driver was unlicensed. When the plaintiff turned to the Karnit Fund (the Road Accident Victims Compensation Fund), it also rejected his claim on the grounds that it was not liable to compensate under the law.
What the Law States on This Issue
Section 7(6) of the Road Accident Victims Compensation Law defines cases in which the Karnit Fund is not obligated to pay compensation. One such case is where the victim permitted or could have permitted a vehicle to be driven without a license. The question before the court was simple yet significant: does the victim’s lack of knowledge affect his right to compensation?
Attorneys at our office take the view that victims entitled to compensation must be given clear and limited grounds for denial. This is because the law’s purpose is to ensure compensation for accident victims, and rights should be denied only in cases of genuinely culpable conduct.
How the Supreme Court Ruled
The court clearly held that Section 7(6) requires actual fault in order to deny compensation. The test established is the reasonable person test: did the victim know or should he have known about the driver’s lack of a license?
In the case at hand, the court found that the plaintiff did not know and was not reasonably expected to know that his colleague lacked a driving license. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation from Karnit. This ruling establishes a fundamental principle: compensation from a road accident victim may not be denied unless there was genuinely culpable conduct on his part.
What This Ruling Means for Road Accident Victims
The ruling creates a fair balance between two values: the need to deter irresponsible behavior on the one hand, and the protection of the rights of victims who acted in good faith on the other. At our office, we see the ruling as an important tool for representing victims whom Karnit or insurance companies attempt to deny compensation on various grounds.
The key principle: even if it is later established that the driver held no license, a victim who acted in good faith and relied on the driver being licensed will be entitled to compensation. This principle also applies when the victim requested a driver from an insurer after the fact, as in our case where the plaintiff did not wish to drive in a fatigued condition.
When Is a Victim Entitled to Compensation from Karnit If the Driver Was Unlicensed?
A victim is entitled to compensation when he did not know and was not reasonably expected to know that the driver was driving without a license. The test combines a subjective examination of actual knowledge with an objective examination of what a reasonable person would have been expected to notice under those circumstances.
How Is It Determined Whether the Victim Should Have Known About the Absence of a License?
All the circumstances must be examined: the relationship between the victim and the driver, the driver’s conduct, the declarations he made, his age, and any other indication that might have aroused suspicion in a reasonable person. If there were no such circumstances, the victim will be entitled to compensation.
What Does This Ruling Teach Us About Victims’ Rights?
The ruling protects good-faith victims from being denied compensation on grounds beyond their knowledge. It clarifies that the law is not intended to penalize victims who acted in good faith, but only in cases of intentionally culpable conduct or gross recklessness.
Does the Ruling Also Apply to Cases Involving Uninsured Vehicles?
The principle established may also be relevant to cases involving uninsured vehicles, but each case requires separate examination. The key point is to check whether the victim knew or was expected to know about the defect that bars compensation.
For appropriate legal advice at no obligation, contact our office today.
This publication does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, please contact our office.
