The Obligation to Install an Elevator Suitable for the Building’s Purpose – An Important Ruling from the Magistrate’s Court

By: Adv. Michael Lev

The Obligation to Install an Elevator Suitable for the Building’s Purpose: A Significant Ruling from the Magistrate’s Court

At our firm, we repeatedly deal with construction defect claims, particularly where contractors install systems that meet the minimum standard but do not, in practice, suit the building’s purpose. Recently, the Magistrate’s Court in Kiryat Gat (Case No. 44676-12-19) established a significant principle in this area: a contractor is obligated to install systems appropriate to the building’s purpose and may not be satisfied with merely meeting the minimal standard.

How Did the Dispute Begin

The defendant, a construction company, built a five-storey commercial building at 5 Yericho Street in Ashdod. The plaintiffs, the apartment representatives, filed a claim totalling 1,383,110 shekels, alleging that the building suffered from significant construction defects, specifically the installation of a hydraulic elevator not suited to the building’s needs.

The problem arose when the elevator stopped operating in April 2019 following recurring faults. The hydraulic elevator overheated rapidly and stopped after only 4 or 5 consecutive trips. In practice, a building intended to serve as offices with intensive public traffic was left with a system unable to handle daily demand.

What the Experts Said

Both parties agreed to appoint an expert, which was the crucial part. Yosef Goldklang and elevator consultant Tzvika Kasif examined the problem and reached a clear conclusion: the hydraulic elevator is unsuitable for an office building and the contractor must replace it with an electric elevator.

The findings were even more specific. The hydraulic elevator is slower by 50% than an electric elevator and is unsuitable for intensive loads. Even the refrigeration system they proposed would not resolve the fundamental problem: it simply was not suited to the purpose. At our firm, we see these findings as an important turning point because they highlight the essential difference between meeting the standard and fitting actual use.

The Court’s Decision and Legal Position

Judge Moshe Holtzman accepted the experts’ opinion as determinative and based his decision on two principles:

First, he determined that an expert opinion agreed upon by both parties as binding is itself binding on them. Consequently, the importance of a properly agreed scope of work and identity of the expert is clear.

Second, and the critical point: the court determined that the contractor bore the obligation to install systems appropriate to the building’s actual purpose, not merely those meeting the minimum statutory requirement. This decision imposed on the contractor a broader liability that goes beyond meeting specifications; he must ensure practical and functional suitability.

What This Means for the Construction Industry

This ruling creates a strong precedent in the construction field. In practice, it means contractors and developers must think more carefully about equipment choices. At our firm, we advise construction companies to specifically examine whether the systems they select can withstand the anticipated daily number of trips in the building. After all, replacing an elevator once construction is complete costs far more than installing the right system from the start.

From the perspective of buyers and residents, the ruling strengthens their right to demand systems suited to the intended use. If you suspect that elevators or other systems in your building were installed unsuitably, it is advisable to seek professional legal counsel to understand what remedies are available to you.

What Can Be Learned from This Ruling

The conclusion is simple but significant: precise planning and proper selection of technical systems are critical. Planners and contractors must examine the anticipated practical use in the building, not only meet specifications.

We strongly recommend: contractors, consult technical experts at the planning stage; residents and building owners, inspect the building before accepting it and ensure all systems are suited to the intended use. It is much simpler and cheaper to deal with problems before construction is complete.

Can a contractor be sued for systems that merely meet the standard?

Absolutely. The ruling is clear: a contractor is obligated to install systems suited to the building’s purpose, not only those meeting the minimum standard. Meeting the standard alone does not exempt him from the obligation to adapt them to actual use.

What is the importance of expert opinion?

Expert opinion agreed upon by both parties as binding obliges them in full. When choosing an expert, ensure he has relevant experience and in-depth knowledge of the specific field disputed in the claim.

What is the difference between a hydraulic elevator and an electric elevator?

According to the experts in the ruling, the hydraulic elevator is half the speed of the electric elevator and unsuitable for intensive use. In addition, it tends to overheat and stop operating after a limited number of consecutive trips.

What is the limitation period for a construction defect claim?

If you discover defects affecting use of the building, seek legal advice without delay. First, document the problems in detail with photographs. Second, remember that treatment costs increase the longer time passes. Need legal advice? Contact us today, without obligation.

Can a contractor exempt himself from liability by claiming he installed an elevator that meets Israeli standards?

No. According to the ruling, a contractor is obligated to install systems suited to the building’s purpose in practice and not only to meet the minimum statutory requirement. Meeting the standard does not release from liability if the system does not function properly for the building’s needs.