Compensation for Minors in Road Accidents: The Formative Ruling Following the Atinger Precedent

By: Attorney Moshe Taieb

Compensation for Minors in Road Accidents: The Significant Supreme Court Ruling

In Israeli tort law, there are rulings that shape legal practice for decades. One such ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court on March 15, 2006 (CA 10990/05, CA 11214/05), which serves as a guiding point for calculating compensation for minors injured in road accidents. In our daily work, we return to this ruling in every case involving a minor injured in an accident.

Behind this ruling stands a tragic case: a minor who was killed in an accident at the age of 17 years and five months. After the district court ruled on the compensation amount, both parties filed appeals that led to the establishment of important principles in tort law.

The Central Question: Does the Atinger Precedent Apply to Road Accident Law?

Before the Supreme Court stood a fundamental question: does the Atinger precedent, which dealt with calculating compensation for lost years of life, also apply to claims under the Road Accident Victims Compensation Law?

The answer was unambiguous: yes. In this determination, the Supreme Court created uniformity in the calculation method across different areas of tort law and strengthened legal certainty. In our work, we see this decision as a basis on which fair and accurate compensation can be assessed.

The Calculation Principle: 30% of Average Salary

In the most important part of the ruling, the court established that a minor without dependents is entitled to global compensation of 30% of the average salary in the economy. The rationale is simple yet significant: a minor without family to support is in a different financial position from an adult with a family.

The 30% figure is not arbitrary. It reflects the fact that a portion of the minor’s future income would have been designated for their own personal needs. The calculation is performed over a period of 46 years with doubled interest, calculated both in monetary value over time and in reasonable life expectancy.

Why the Global Approach is Preferable

This method offers several significant advantages. First, it simplifies the calculation and reduces the risk of errors in complex calculations. Second, it creates consistency between similar cases. In our practice, we see that it allows us to provide our clients with a precise and rapid estimate of the expected compensation amount.

Years of Military Service: Why There Is No Compensation

On a point that raises much controversy, the court established that compensation cannot be awarded for years of military service lost. Why this decision?

The economic rationale is straightforward: during military service, the soldier receives low remuneration (pocket money), but their subsistence expenses are also minimal. If the court had awarded compensation for the loss of low income, it would have had to deduct the saved subsistence expenses, and the result would be that the amounts cancel each other out. Therefore, there is no net benefit for this period.

The Salary Basis: Why the National Average Is Used

For minors who have not yet reached age 18, the court established that the calculation of lost earning capacity shall be based on the average salary in the economy. The reasoning is straightforward: such a minor has not yet chosen a professional or educational track, and it is difficult to predict what their career path would have been.

The average salary in the economy provides a fair reference point. In our firm, we use the most current data from the Central Bureau of Statistics to ensure accuracy in calculations.

How This Translates into Practice

The ruling created a stable and clear framework for calculating compensation in every case involving a minor injured in an accident. In our handling of these cases, we use these principles to provide our clients with a reliable assessment of the expected compensation.

The court’s decision to distinguish between minors without dependents and those with dependents reflects a deep understanding of the social and economic reality. The 30% of average salary balances the need for fair compensation with the recognition that a portion of this income was designated for the minor’s own personal needs from the outset.

Frequently Asked Questions

How exactly is compensation calculated for a minor injured in an accident?

The calculation is based on 30% of the average salary in the economy over a period of 46 years with doubled interest. We use the average salary data at the date of the accident and not any specific income assessment of the minor.

Will a minor who served in the military receive compensation for years of service?

No. The Supreme Court clearly established that compensation cannot be awarded for these years, because the amounts cancel each other out with the saved subsistence expenses.

What is the difference between the global approach and other methods?

The global approach sets a fixed rate (30% of average salary), while other methods are based on detailed calculations of specific expenditures. The global approach is simpler and provides consistency in rulings.

When exactly does this ruling apply?

It applies to all road accident cases in which a minor was injured, whether involving injury or death. The principles established by this ruling serve to calculate compensation in all relevant cases.

For consultation with an expert on compensation for road accident victims, you are welcome to contact us. At our firm, we specialize in handling these cases and offer professional accompaniment and guidance at every stage of the legal process.

The above is not a substitute for legal advice. For advice tailored to your circumstances, contact our office.