כמו בשיטות משפט רבות, עקרון המידתיות נטוע חזק בשיטת המשפט הישראלית, בעיקר
בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( ה... more כמו בשיטות משפט רבות, עקרון המידתיות נטוע חזק בשיטת המשפט הישראלית, בעיקר בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( החוקתי, המנהלי והפלילי). בתחום המשפט הפרטי, בעיקר בדיני . בעזרת תזה כזו, לוּ פוּתחה, 1 נזיקין, עיקרון זה כמעט ואינו נוכח, לפחות לא כתזה הוליסטית ניתן היה להמשיג באופן קוהרנטי יותר תופעות משפטיות מזדמנות , ועם זאת מרכזיות ורלוונטיות, ולהאחיד כמכלול כללים ספורדיים שמקורם בחקיקה נזיקית – כללית או נקודתית – ובפסיקה הנרחבת, שא ר היה לה, בעשורים האחרונים , תפקיד מפתח בקידום ובפיתוח משטר הנזיקין הישראלי. מאמר זה בא לבחון את השאלה, אם, ועד כמה , ניתן לאתר בדיני הנזיקין הישראלים שימוש חקיקתי ופסיקתי בכלים שעקרון המידתיות, כפי שהתפתח בענפי משפט אחרים, מספק. בהמשך לאיתור דוגמאות לשימוש כזה , ועל בסיס הבנתו ומטרתו, נבקש להאיר את תרומתו האפשרית לדיני הנזיקין , ולהציע לפתח אותו באופן מובנה ומסודר במסגרת מספר סוגיות נזיקיות נורמטיביות ויישומיות , הן במישור קביעת האחריות הנזיקית – הקצאתה וחלוקתה – והן במישור התרופתי – בחירת סוג הסעד הראוי, מידתו וחישובו.
חוויה רבת משתתפים בחדר המיון של חדר הלידה – מבט רפואי, פסיכולוגי ומשפט
מערכת היחסים בין מטופלים לבין מי שמטפלים בהם עברה ועוברת שינויים משמעותיים
בעשורים האחרונים. השי... more מערכת היחסים בין מטופלים לבין מי שמטפלים בהם עברה ועוברת שינויים משמעותיים בעשורים האחרונים. השינויים הללו משקפים התפתחויות חברתיות, תרבותיות, כלכליות וטכנולוגיות, שרישומן משליך הן על מעמדו של הפרט-המטופל מול המערכת המטפלת בו, שנדרשת לראות בו כיום שותף פעיל, והן על מעמד המטפל שהחברה והמשפט מטילים עליו את האחריות להוציא מהכוח אל הפועל את האוטונומיה החדשה הזו של מי שבהם הוא מטפל. דמות הרופא הכול יכול, המורם מעם, שעל פיו יישק דבר, אינה משקפת עוד את האידיאל הנורמטיבי. המטפל והמטופל אמורים, לפי המודל הזה, לשאת באחריות משותפת – גם אם לא שווה – בבחירת הטיפול הרצוי, אופן ביצועו, זהות מבצעו מיקומו ועיתויו. ההגנה על האוטונומיה של המטופל, על זכותו לבחור סיפור חיים, לכתוב אותו ולנתב אותו באופן מושכל על פי מידע שהמערכת המטפלת מספקת, מהווה כיום תמה מרכזית שלאורה מתנהל השיח המלווה את הטיפול הרפואי, הן זה שמתקיים באופן אישי בין המטפל למטופל והן זה שמכתיב את פרוטוקול המגעים שבין ספקי שירותי הבריאות לבין הצרכנים המטופלים על ידן
Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protec... more Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protection, criminal protection, administrative protection and civil law- mostly tort law- protection. These sources supply protection against both public (state and public authorities, bodies, officers) and private (personal as well as legal entities) violations of human rights. This papers deals with the relevant causes of action by which Israeli courts compensate for the harm caused by human rights violations. We shall mainly deal with tort law, yet since the interplay among the multiple sources of protection is sometime complicated and unclear we shall have to relate to constitutional/penal law as well, but only when directly relevant to the main issue of the paper. Two main consequences follow. First, the current law in Israel portrays a very well equipped toolkit. Second, nevertheless, case law still grapples with the idea of finding a well -balanced avenue to impose absolute liability for violations of human rights regardless of fault, negligence or any other deviation from reasonable conduct on the part of the state and its organs and/or officers in certain limited type of circumstances.
The right to be forgotten and erase , originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spai... more The right to be forgotten and erase , originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spain , has caused considerable legal debates on both theoretical and procedural issues. The Israeli Supreme Court has also just recently considered the issue when it was asked to enforce the right to be forgotten of an Israeli advocate, Jonathan Miller, and delist harmful information which appeared in a Google search, and was in truth related to a different adv. Jonathan Miller. The plaintiff relied on the Israeli Prohibition of Defamation Law. Liability was denied on the basis that the information was indeed true, and thus-justified. We suggest in this article that the court should have imposed liability in negligence, an open ended general tort that mainly applies when particular torts fail to supply a reasonable and just solution in new factual situations due to change in social, economic and technological circumstances.
Personality rights, by nature, reflect the culture and values of society. Thus, it is interesting... more Personality rights, by nature, reflect the culture and values of society. Thus, it is interesting to look back on the road that Israeli law has traveled since the early 1980s, when the right to privacy as such had no trace of protection in Israeli private law, through to the present, when it is protected by both the Protection of Privacy Law and the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Current Israeli case law, which shows that the balance between privacy and free speech in cases of publication of private information leans toward privacy, can be partially explained by historical, religious and cultural reasons. The increased privacy litigation in Israel forms part of an ever-growing protection of other personality rights in Israeli law, thus serving as a good example of this expanding trend.
Medical professionals providing humanitarian aid in times of crisis face complicated ethical and ... more Medical professionals providing humanitarian aid in times of crisis face complicated ethical and clinical challenges. Today, humanitarian aid is given in accordance with existing guidelines developed by international humanitarian organizations and defined by international law. This paper considers the ethical aspects and frameworks of an atypical humanitarian project, namely one that provides medical support through an Israeli civilian hospital to Syrian Civil War casualties. We explore new ethical questions in this unique situation that pose a serious challenge for the medical community and conventional ethical norms, a challenge Israeli medical staff meet on a daily basis. Before discussing the ethical challenges, we give a description of the project and its unique status.
The world famous Eltroxin saga of 2009–2011, which ignited heated public debates in Europe, Canad... more The world famous Eltroxin saga of 2009–2011, which ignited heated public debates in Europe, Canada, and Australia, reveals the problematic nature of standalone autonomy protection cases. Eltroxin is a life‐sustaining thyroid hormone replacement medicine used by millions worldwide; it was reformulated in 2008, and around 10% of patients were badly affected. Poor communication and lack of professional information triggered public hysteria as a global wave of complaints about harmful side effects, including hair loss, weight gain, extreme fatigue, headaches, diarrhoea, and heightened heart rates, flooded the media. Israeli Eltroxin users (around 250 thousand people) were similarly unaware. Following many media reports and ministerial regulations, a high‐profile consumer class action was launched against Perrigo, the distributor. Ten years of court proceedings culminated in a compensation settlement of approximately US$ 14 million. This relatively low sum covered the injuries of those patients who were physically affected; compensation for standalone autonomy injuries to all patients (who were denied information about changes to their life‐sustaining medicine) was refused. The monetary settlement and court decision were hugely disappointing to the class plaintiffs, and a negative signal was sent to the proponents of consumers' and patients' personal autonomy. However, the class action still marked a positive change in pharmaceutical protocols for relations between health authorities, commercial pharmacy entities, and patients/consumers as seen by the proactive communication around a subsequent Eltroxin reformulation in 2020 in Israel, Europe, and South Africa (Aspen Pharmacare, 2020).1 This paper highlights the vast potential value of consumer class action proceedings, and pharmaceutical consumer (patient) class actions in particular, for public welfare and private autonomy. The paper will explain leading Israeli case law related to consumer autonomy protection in tort law and will argue that this law still holds the unique protection of autonomy as a basic human right and accordingly recognises harm to autonomy as a viable form of damage. Additionally, it illustrates why and how consumer protection class actions are an important tool for protection of human rights in general and of patients' rights in particular.
ABSTRACT The circumstances of Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank ... more ABSTRACT The circumstances of Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank plc. raised the following question: was Barclays Bank, having been served with a freezing order granted to the Commissioners of Customs against the account of one of its customers, under a duty of care to comply with the terms of the order and thus liable to the commissioners for the loss caused by its negligence. The House of Lords decided that no such duty existed: the bank did not assume responsibility; it was not fair, just or reasonable to widen the scope of liability for pure economic loss under such circumstances; and the incremental test adopted by previous case law did not favor such liability. In Paz Oil Co. Ltd. v. State of Israel the plaintiff owned a gas station located on the highway, close to a busy junction in the center of the country. Due to construction work, the entrance to the gas station was temporarily moved a few hundred meters down the highway. The plaintiff claimed that the state and its organs were negligent with regard to both the detour and the duration of the construction work, which had been scheduled for six months and eventually stretched to 22 months. The Israeli Supreme Court found no negligence on the part of the defendants, yet explicitly declared that, had it found such negligence, it would have imposed liability on the state for the economic loss suffered by the gas station. My aim in this paper is to compare these two decisions and use them to both highlight the problems and to suggest new methods for dealing with the dilemma of pure economic loss caused by negligence. The Israeli legal system is classified as a mixed legal system whereas the English legal system is a pure common law system. Yet Israeli tort law was (originally and fully) and still is (to some extent) English Common Law oriented. So the difference between these two decisions regarding the issue of pure economic loss cannot and should not be attributed to the distinct type of legal system. Each legal system applies restrictive liability tests and both share the same concerns regarding the proper balance between competing policy considerations. The conclusion in both cases is based mostly on social and economic considerations which differ from one court to another as well as on the willingness to expand tortious liability in negligence cases, in general. This paper aims to question the means adopted by both legal systems, as well as other systems like that of Canada, the US, Australia and Denmark, for deciding pure economic loss cases. Part I discusses the facts of both decisions in detail. Part II compares the two decisions, focusing on the ideological, theoretical, and practical motifs of both courts. It highlights the differences in rhetoric and legal research. While the House of Lords, although still searching for reasonable guidelines, has reconciled itself to the notion that there is no clear cut test for the problem of negligently-caused pure economic loss, the Israeli Supreme Court unhesitatingly embraces the opportunity (in this case, a missed opportunity) to impose liability on a negligent public authority albeit with no sufficient theoretical grounds for such ideological choice. Both courts unquestioningly apply the well-known taxonomy of pure economic loss cases (negligent misrepresentation, negligent performance of a service, defective products, defective buildings and relational economic loss) and both agree (the Israeli Supreme Court is very stingy with explanations yet its logic can be inferred from other, similar cases) that, as a matter of policy, pure economic loss cases call for a different agenda. However, when it comes to the bottom line, the House of Lords resolves the issue in the bank’s favor, while the Israeli Supreme Court would have favored the plaintiff if only it could have shown that the state was in fact negligent. Part III tries to achieve the impossible - to convince the reader that the above categorization of factual cases of pure economic loss is misleading and cannot serve as a logical tool for dealing with this complicated issue. I try to show that, while too many cases deviate from the well-accepted categories, at the same time, too many cases fall correspondingly into two or more factual categories. The negligent bank and the 'almost' negligent Israeli road construction division serve as good examples. Following this discussion, Part IV proposes to return to the good old policy considerations applied in negligence cases, in general, and to employ the relevant considerations in pure economic loss cases exactly in the same manner in which the courts decide which policy considerations are relevant in physical loss cases. It is my contention that both English and Israeli courts apply pure economic loss criteria to physical loss cases. The case of a negligently handled DNA sample and the case of a horse riding accident, in England and Israel, respectively, were…
Among the various bills proposing amendments to Israel&am... more Among the various bills proposing amendments to Israel's Defamation (Prohibition) Law that were presented to the 18th Knesset, the most controversial one is the bill proposing an increase in the caps on statutory damages (without proof of special or general damage). The current NIS 50,000 cap (NIS 100,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury) will be replaced, if the bill is approved, by a NIS 300,000 cap (NIS 600,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury). This proposed massive change has ignited a heated public debate. The bill, according to its proponents, is targeted principally at the media. Its aim is deterrence and even punishment, accomplished by attaching a higher price tag to libellous publications while focusing on remedies and leaving liability tests (including defences) untouched.I claim that this bill is both unnecessary and detrimental.Based on case law from the eight-year period 2004–11 on damages awarded by Israeli courts in defamation cases – both damages awarded ‘without proof of damage’ (the plaintiff does not need to prove damage caused by the publication) and damages awarded for ‘general damage’ (some general damage needs to be proved) – I conclude that the spectrum of judicial discretion is sufficiently broad to accommodate any level of deterrence seen fit by the courts in any circumstances. The fact that average damages awards do not reach the statutory caps indicates that, for all practical purposes, legislative intrusion in the manner proposed is erroneous. As to the normative standards the bill strives to convey, I maintain that absent reasonable justifications based on identifiable changes in cultural, social or other circumstances over time, the attempt to change the currently accepted balance between the rights of reputation and freedom of speech in Israeli defamation law in terms of damages awards is also erroneous.Even if some modification of the current balance between reputation and free speech, as a result of specified changes in circumstances, do indeed appear to be necessary, the particular content, form and measure of this specific bill – which have yet to be examined and assessed – do not seem to provide the right approach to achieve such modifications.
The event, led by Prof. Steve Saxby, Editor-in-Chief of CLSR, invited contributions from five leg... more The event, led by Prof. Steve Saxby, Editor-in-Chief of CLSR, invited contributions from five legal specialists on a variety of current issues dealing with the future of privacy. A lively discussion took place amongst those present after each intervention. The reports of those who presented are recorded below.
In recent years, the protection of personal rights, namely, reputation, privacy, autonomy, the ri... more In recent years, the protection of personal rights, namely, reputation, privacy, autonomy, the right to personal commercialization (the right to publication) and others, has attracted considerable attention in Israeli society. Alongside the academic debate dealing with ethical issues and analyzing the theoretical basis for each of the personal rights, a fundamental debate is underway in an effort to produce a practical change in the legal rules governing these matters. Actively participating in this discussion are our elected representatives in the legislature, some of whom are working vigorously to strengthen the group of classic personal rights, and in particular the right to reputation, on one side, and the representatives of the "media", the print media and broadcast media, the Press Council and other public bodies on the other side.The growing public discourse, ambivalent case law, political constraints and technological developments in this field combined with reasons ensuing from the lengthy time that has elapsed since the enactment of the Prohibition of Defamation Act, 1965 – have led to an increase in the flow of proposals for amending this law. The arguments and working assumptions used by the parties in this important debate suffer from one significant disadvantage – they lack an adequate factual basis. Both those desiring a harsher legal response to damage to reputation and those who are concerned about the fate of the free investigative press – have failed to present any factual data about how things actually happen "on the ground".In this study we seek to meet the need for empirical data that will paint a factual picture of the relevant Israeli case law and the manner in which the courts perceive the value of reputation and the financial balancing point at which compensation for damage to reputation may be provided on the one hand while safeguarding equally important conflicting interests on the other hand. The purpose of the study is to examine the data relating to awards of compensation for damage to reputation in Israeli law during the last eight years: If the number of defamation suits upheld in recent years where compensation was awarded has increased or decreased; if the amount of compensation awarded today by the courts in Israel in cases where the claim has been upheld on the grounds of breach of the Prohibition of Defamation Act when the defendant has been held responsible for the defamatory publication has increased or decreased; what is the accepted "price tag" for damage to the reputation of an elected official compared to the "price tag" for damage to the reputation of an ordinary person; what is the value accorded to reputation; what is the amount of compensation imposed on the media when it publishes defamation; what does the court regard as a suitable amount of compensation for damage to reputation in general and on what basis is that amount determined.In order to present its findings, the article opens with a review of the principles of compensation – those originating in the law and those derived from case law – for damage to reputation under tort law in general and according to the Prohibition on Defamation Act, in particular. Following this, the article re-introduces the principle of compensation without proof of damage, one of the innovations of the Prohibition on Defamation Act. After this, the article explains the research methodology and presents the findings. Finally, the article offers some general conclusions based on the research findings and identifies other possible approaches for future studies for which this study can provide a platform.The principal importance of this study is to create a broad fund of factual empirical data on which it will be possible to base in the future both more coherent and consistent case law and better founded and more realistic legislation.
כמו בשיטות משפט רבות, עקרון המידתיות נטוע חזק בשיטת המשפט הישראלית, בעיקר
בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( ה... more כמו בשיטות משפט רבות, עקרון המידתיות נטוע חזק בשיטת המשפט הישראלית, בעיקר בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( החוקתי, המנהלי והפלילי). בתחום המשפט הפרטי, בעיקר בדיני . בעזרת תזה כזו, לוּ פוּתחה, 1 נזיקין, עיקרון זה כמעט ואינו נוכח, לפחות לא כתזה הוליסטית ניתן היה להמשיג באופן קוהרנטי יותר תופעות משפטיות מזדמנות , ועם זאת מרכזיות ורלוונטיות, ולהאחיד כמכלול כללים ספורדיים שמקורם בחקיקה נזיקית – כללית או נקודתית – ובפסיקה הנרחבת, שא ר היה לה, בעשורים האחרונים , תפקיד מפתח בקידום ובפיתוח משטר הנזיקין הישראלי. מאמר זה בא לבחון את השאלה, אם, ועד כמה , ניתן לאתר בדיני הנזיקין הישראלים שימוש חקיקתי ופסיקתי בכלים שעקרון המידתיות, כפי שהתפתח בענפי משפט אחרים, מספק. בהמשך לאיתור דוגמאות לשימוש כזה , ועל בסיס הבנתו ומטרתו, נבקש להאיר את תרומתו האפשרית לדיני הנזיקין , ולהציע לפתח אותו באופן מובנה ומסודר במסגרת מספר סוגיות נזיקיות נורמטיביות ויישומיות , הן במישור קביעת האחריות הנזיקית – הקצאתה וחלוקתה – והן במישור התרופתי – בחירת סוג הסעד הראוי, מידתו וחישובו.
חוויה רבת משתתפים בחדר המיון של חדר הלידה – מבט רפואי, פסיכולוגי ומשפט
מערכת היחסים בין מטופלים לבין מי שמטפלים בהם עברה ועוברת שינויים משמעותיים
בעשורים האחרונים. השי... more מערכת היחסים בין מטופלים לבין מי שמטפלים בהם עברה ועוברת שינויים משמעותיים בעשורים האחרונים. השינויים הללו משקפים התפתחויות חברתיות, תרבותיות, כלכליות וטכנולוגיות, שרישומן משליך הן על מעמדו של הפרט-המטופל מול המערכת המטפלת בו, שנדרשת לראות בו כיום שותף פעיל, והן על מעמד המטפל שהחברה והמשפט מטילים עליו את האחריות להוציא מהכוח אל הפועל את האוטונומיה החדשה הזו של מי שבהם הוא מטפל. דמות הרופא הכול יכול, המורם מעם, שעל פיו יישק דבר, אינה משקפת עוד את האידיאל הנורמטיבי. המטפל והמטופל אמורים, לפי המודל הזה, לשאת באחריות משותפת – גם אם לא שווה – בבחירת הטיפול הרצוי, אופן ביצועו, זהות מבצעו מיקומו ועיתויו. ההגנה על האוטונומיה של המטופל, על זכותו לבחור סיפור חיים, לכתוב אותו ולנתב אותו באופן מושכל על פי מידע שהמערכת המטפלת מספקת, מהווה כיום תמה מרכזית שלאורה מתנהל השיח המלווה את הטיפול הרפואי, הן זה שמתקיים באופן אישי בין המטפל למטופל והן זה שמכתיב את פרוטוקול המגעים שבין ספקי שירותי הבריאות לבין הצרכנים המטופלים על ידן
Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protec... more Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protection, criminal protection, administrative protection and civil law- mostly tort law- protection. These sources supply protection against both public (state and public authorities, bodies, officers) and private (personal as well as legal entities) violations of human rights. This papers deals with the relevant causes of action by which Israeli courts compensate for the harm caused by human rights violations. We shall mainly deal with tort law, yet since the interplay among the multiple sources of protection is sometime complicated and unclear we shall have to relate to constitutional/penal law as well, but only when directly relevant to the main issue of the paper. Two main consequences follow. First, the current law in Israel portrays a very well equipped toolkit. Second, nevertheless, case law still grapples with the idea of finding a well -balanced avenue to impose absolute liability for violations of human rights regardless of fault, negligence or any other deviation from reasonable conduct on the part of the state and its organs and/or officers in certain limited type of circumstances.
The right to be forgotten and erase , originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spai... more The right to be forgotten and erase , originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spain , has caused considerable legal debates on both theoretical and procedural issues. The Israeli Supreme Court has also just recently considered the issue when it was asked to enforce the right to be forgotten of an Israeli advocate, Jonathan Miller, and delist harmful information which appeared in a Google search, and was in truth related to a different adv. Jonathan Miller. The plaintiff relied on the Israeli Prohibition of Defamation Law. Liability was denied on the basis that the information was indeed true, and thus-justified. We suggest in this article that the court should have imposed liability in negligence, an open ended general tort that mainly applies when particular torts fail to supply a reasonable and just solution in new factual situations due to change in social, economic and technological circumstances.
Personality rights, by nature, reflect the culture and values of society. Thus, it is interesting... more Personality rights, by nature, reflect the culture and values of society. Thus, it is interesting to look back on the road that Israeli law has traveled since the early 1980s, when the right to privacy as such had no trace of protection in Israeli private law, through to the present, when it is protected by both the Protection of Privacy Law and the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Current Israeli case law, which shows that the balance between privacy and free speech in cases of publication of private information leans toward privacy, can be partially explained by historical, religious and cultural reasons. The increased privacy litigation in Israel forms part of an ever-growing protection of other personality rights in Israeli law, thus serving as a good example of this expanding trend.
Medical professionals providing humanitarian aid in times of crisis face complicated ethical and ... more Medical professionals providing humanitarian aid in times of crisis face complicated ethical and clinical challenges. Today, humanitarian aid is given in accordance with existing guidelines developed by international humanitarian organizations and defined by international law. This paper considers the ethical aspects and frameworks of an atypical humanitarian project, namely one that provides medical support through an Israeli civilian hospital to Syrian Civil War casualties. We explore new ethical questions in this unique situation that pose a serious challenge for the medical community and conventional ethical norms, a challenge Israeli medical staff meet on a daily basis. Before discussing the ethical challenges, we give a description of the project and its unique status.
The world famous Eltroxin saga of 2009–2011, which ignited heated public debates in Europe, Canad... more The world famous Eltroxin saga of 2009–2011, which ignited heated public debates in Europe, Canada, and Australia, reveals the problematic nature of standalone autonomy protection cases. Eltroxin is a life‐sustaining thyroid hormone replacement medicine used by millions worldwide; it was reformulated in 2008, and around 10% of patients were badly affected. Poor communication and lack of professional information triggered public hysteria as a global wave of complaints about harmful side effects, including hair loss, weight gain, extreme fatigue, headaches, diarrhoea, and heightened heart rates, flooded the media. Israeli Eltroxin users (around 250 thousand people) were similarly unaware. Following many media reports and ministerial regulations, a high‐profile consumer class action was launched against Perrigo, the distributor. Ten years of court proceedings culminated in a compensation settlement of approximately US$ 14 million. This relatively low sum covered the injuries of those patients who were physically affected; compensation for standalone autonomy injuries to all patients (who were denied information about changes to their life‐sustaining medicine) was refused. The monetary settlement and court decision were hugely disappointing to the class plaintiffs, and a negative signal was sent to the proponents of consumers' and patients' personal autonomy. However, the class action still marked a positive change in pharmaceutical protocols for relations between health authorities, commercial pharmacy entities, and patients/consumers as seen by the proactive communication around a subsequent Eltroxin reformulation in 2020 in Israel, Europe, and South Africa (Aspen Pharmacare, 2020).1 This paper highlights the vast potential value of consumer class action proceedings, and pharmaceutical consumer (patient) class actions in particular, for public welfare and private autonomy. The paper will explain leading Israeli case law related to consumer autonomy protection in tort law and will argue that this law still holds the unique protection of autonomy as a basic human right and accordingly recognises harm to autonomy as a viable form of damage. Additionally, it illustrates why and how consumer protection class actions are an important tool for protection of human rights in general and of patients' rights in particular.
ABSTRACT The circumstances of Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank ... more ABSTRACT The circumstances of Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank plc. raised the following question: was Barclays Bank, having been served with a freezing order granted to the Commissioners of Customs against the account of one of its customers, under a duty of care to comply with the terms of the order and thus liable to the commissioners for the loss caused by its negligence. The House of Lords decided that no such duty existed: the bank did not assume responsibility; it was not fair, just or reasonable to widen the scope of liability for pure economic loss under such circumstances; and the incremental test adopted by previous case law did not favor such liability. In Paz Oil Co. Ltd. v. State of Israel the plaintiff owned a gas station located on the highway, close to a busy junction in the center of the country. Due to construction work, the entrance to the gas station was temporarily moved a few hundred meters down the highway. The plaintiff claimed that the state and its organs were negligent with regard to both the detour and the duration of the construction work, which had been scheduled for six months and eventually stretched to 22 months. The Israeli Supreme Court found no negligence on the part of the defendants, yet explicitly declared that, had it found such negligence, it would have imposed liability on the state for the economic loss suffered by the gas station. My aim in this paper is to compare these two decisions and use them to both highlight the problems and to suggest new methods for dealing with the dilemma of pure economic loss caused by negligence. The Israeli legal system is classified as a mixed legal system whereas the English legal system is a pure common law system. Yet Israeli tort law was (originally and fully) and still is (to some extent) English Common Law oriented. So the difference between these two decisions regarding the issue of pure economic loss cannot and should not be attributed to the distinct type of legal system. Each legal system applies restrictive liability tests and both share the same concerns regarding the proper balance between competing policy considerations. The conclusion in both cases is based mostly on social and economic considerations which differ from one court to another as well as on the willingness to expand tortious liability in negligence cases, in general. This paper aims to question the means adopted by both legal systems, as well as other systems like that of Canada, the US, Australia and Denmark, for deciding pure economic loss cases. Part I discusses the facts of both decisions in detail. Part II compares the two decisions, focusing on the ideological, theoretical, and practical motifs of both courts. It highlights the differences in rhetoric and legal research. While the House of Lords, although still searching for reasonable guidelines, has reconciled itself to the notion that there is no clear cut test for the problem of negligently-caused pure economic loss, the Israeli Supreme Court unhesitatingly embraces the opportunity (in this case, a missed opportunity) to impose liability on a negligent public authority albeit with no sufficient theoretical grounds for such ideological choice. Both courts unquestioningly apply the well-known taxonomy of pure economic loss cases (negligent misrepresentation, negligent performance of a service, defective products, defective buildings and relational economic loss) and both agree (the Israeli Supreme Court is very stingy with explanations yet its logic can be inferred from other, similar cases) that, as a matter of policy, pure economic loss cases call for a different agenda. However, when it comes to the bottom line, the House of Lords resolves the issue in the bank’s favor, while the Israeli Supreme Court would have favored the plaintiff if only it could have shown that the state was in fact negligent. Part III tries to achieve the impossible - to convince the reader that the above categorization of factual cases of pure economic loss is misleading and cannot serve as a logical tool for dealing with this complicated issue. I try to show that, while too many cases deviate from the well-accepted categories, at the same time, too many cases fall correspondingly into two or more factual categories. The negligent bank and the 'almost' negligent Israeli road construction division serve as good examples. Following this discussion, Part IV proposes to return to the good old policy considerations applied in negligence cases, in general, and to employ the relevant considerations in pure economic loss cases exactly in the same manner in which the courts decide which policy considerations are relevant in physical loss cases. It is my contention that both English and Israeli courts apply pure economic loss criteria to physical loss cases. The case of a negligently handled DNA sample and the case of a horse riding accident, in England and Israel, respectively, were…
Among the various bills proposing amendments to Israel&am... more Among the various bills proposing amendments to Israel's Defamation (Prohibition) Law that were presented to the 18th Knesset, the most controversial one is the bill proposing an increase in the caps on statutory damages (without proof of special or general damage). The current NIS 50,000 cap (NIS 100,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury) will be replaced, if the bill is approved, by a NIS 300,000 cap (NIS 600,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury). This proposed massive change has ignited a heated public debate. The bill, according to its proponents, is targeted principally at the media. Its aim is deterrence and even punishment, accomplished by attaching a higher price tag to libellous publications while focusing on remedies and leaving liability tests (including defences) untouched.I claim that this bill is both unnecessary and detrimental.Based on case law from the eight-year period 2004–11 on damages awarded by Israeli courts in defamation cases – both damages awarded ‘without proof of damage’ (the plaintiff does not need to prove damage caused by the publication) and damages awarded for ‘general damage’ (some general damage needs to be proved) – I conclude that the spectrum of judicial discretion is sufficiently broad to accommodate any level of deterrence seen fit by the courts in any circumstances. The fact that average damages awards do not reach the statutory caps indicates that, for all practical purposes, legislative intrusion in the manner proposed is erroneous. As to the normative standards the bill strives to convey, I maintain that absent reasonable justifications based on identifiable changes in cultural, social or other circumstances over time, the attempt to change the currently accepted balance between the rights of reputation and freedom of speech in Israeli defamation law in terms of damages awards is also erroneous.Even if some modification of the current balance between reputation and free speech, as a result of specified changes in circumstances, do indeed appear to be necessary, the particular content, form and measure of this specific bill – which have yet to be examined and assessed – do not seem to provide the right approach to achieve such modifications.
The event, led by Prof. Steve Saxby, Editor-in-Chief of CLSR, invited contributions from five leg... more The event, led by Prof. Steve Saxby, Editor-in-Chief of CLSR, invited contributions from five legal specialists on a variety of current issues dealing with the future of privacy. A lively discussion took place amongst those present after each intervention. The reports of those who presented are recorded below.
In recent years, the protection of personal rights, namely, reputation, privacy, autonomy, the ri... more In recent years, the protection of personal rights, namely, reputation, privacy, autonomy, the right to personal commercialization (the right to publication) and others, has attracted considerable attention in Israeli society. Alongside the academic debate dealing with ethical issues and analyzing the theoretical basis for each of the personal rights, a fundamental debate is underway in an effort to produce a practical change in the legal rules governing these matters. Actively participating in this discussion are our elected representatives in the legislature, some of whom are working vigorously to strengthen the group of classic personal rights, and in particular the right to reputation, on one side, and the representatives of the "media", the print media and broadcast media, the Press Council and other public bodies on the other side.The growing public discourse, ambivalent case law, political constraints and technological developments in this field combined with reasons ensuing from the lengthy time that has elapsed since the enactment of the Prohibition of Defamation Act, 1965 – have led to an increase in the flow of proposals for amending this law. The arguments and working assumptions used by the parties in this important debate suffer from one significant disadvantage – they lack an adequate factual basis. Both those desiring a harsher legal response to damage to reputation and those who are concerned about the fate of the free investigative press – have failed to present any factual data about how things actually happen "on the ground".In this study we seek to meet the need for empirical data that will paint a factual picture of the relevant Israeli case law and the manner in which the courts perceive the value of reputation and the financial balancing point at which compensation for damage to reputation may be provided on the one hand while safeguarding equally important conflicting interests on the other hand. The purpose of the study is to examine the data relating to awards of compensation for damage to reputation in Israeli law during the last eight years: If the number of defamation suits upheld in recent years where compensation was awarded has increased or decreased; if the amount of compensation awarded today by the courts in Israel in cases where the claim has been upheld on the grounds of breach of the Prohibition of Defamation Act when the defendant has been held responsible for the defamatory publication has increased or decreased; what is the accepted "price tag" for damage to the reputation of an elected official compared to the "price tag" for damage to the reputation of an ordinary person; what is the value accorded to reputation; what is the amount of compensation imposed on the media when it publishes defamation; what does the court regard as a suitable amount of compensation for damage to reputation in general and on what basis is that amount determined.In order to present its findings, the article opens with a review of the principles of compensation – those originating in the law and those derived from case law – for damage to reputation under tort law in general and according to the Prohibition on Defamation Act, in particular. Following this, the article re-introduces the principle of compensation without proof of damage, one of the innovations of the Prohibition on Defamation Act. After this, the article explains the research methodology and presents the findings. Finally, the article offers some general conclusions based on the research findings and identifies other possible approaches for future studies for which this study can provide a platform.The principal importance of this study is to create a broad fund of factual empirical data on which it will be possible to base in the future both more coherent and consistent case law and better founded and more realistic legislation.
The Israeli Law’s approach to Pure Economic loss (PEL) is still in its formative stage. On the on... more The Israeli Law’s approach to Pure Economic loss (PEL) is still in its formative stage. On the one hand there are quite a handful of court decisions discussing most categories of cases in which PEL can occur; yet on the other hand these decisions do not give us any clear rules or guidelines advising about the Israeli tort law position regarding PEL.
Part II of this paper outlines the structure of Israeli tort law at large, stressing issues that will be later relevant to the specific topic at hand. Part III presents the leading Israeli PEL case law and then analyzes the current state of the law. In order to present the material in a “hands-on” manner, part VI provides nine fictional, but true-to-life, examples of economic loss. These examples are examined and discussed using Israeli case law and theory. This part is both challenging and effortless due to the unique state of the law as explained above. Effortless, because the current common trend in Israeli tort law points toward expanding liability in tort at large and in negligence in particular; challenging because to date, Israeli case law is devoid of any clear, binding analysis of this important issue.
Uploads
Papers by Tamar Gidron
בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( החוקתי, המנהלי והפלילי). בתחום המשפט הפרטי, בעיקר בדיני
. בעזרת תזה כזו, לוּ פוּתחה, 1 נזיקין, עיקרון זה כמעט ואינו נוכח, לפחות לא כתזה הוליסטית
ניתן היה להמשיג באופן קוהרנטי יותר תופעות משפטיות מזדמנות , ועם זאת מרכזיות
ורלוונטיות, ולהאחיד כמכלול כללים ספורדיים שמקורם בחקיקה נזיקית – כללית או
נקודתית – ובפסיקה הנרחבת, שא ר היה לה, בעשורים האחרונים , תפקיד מפתח בקידום
ובפיתוח משטר הנזיקין הישראלי.
מאמר זה בא לבחון את השאלה, אם, ועד כמה , ניתן לאתר בדיני הנזיקין הישראלים
שימוש חקיקתי ופסיקתי בכלים שעקרון המידתיות, כפי שהתפתח בענפי משפט אחרים,
מספק. בהמשך לאיתור דוגמאות לשימוש כזה , ועל בסיס הבנתו ומטרתו, נבקש להאיר את
תרומתו האפשרית לדיני הנזיקין , ולהציע לפתח אותו באופן מובנה ומסודר במסגרת מספר
סוגיות נזיקיות נורמטיביות ויישומיות , הן במישור קביעת האחריות הנזיקית – הקצאתה
וחלוקתה – והן במישור התרופתי – בחירת סוג הסעד הראוי, מידתו וחישובו.
בעשורים האחרונים. השינויים הללו משקפים התפתחויות חברתיות, תרבותיות, כלכליות
וטכנולוגיות, שרישומן משליך הן על מעמדו של הפרט-המטופל מול המערכת המטפלת בו,
שנדרשת לראות בו כיום שותף פעיל, והן על מעמד המטפל שהחברה והמשפט מטילים עליו
את האחריות להוציא מהכוח אל הפועל את האוטונומיה החדשה הזו של מי שבהם הוא
מטפל. דמות הרופא הכול יכול, המורם מעם, שעל פיו יישק דבר, אינה משקפת עוד את
האידיאל הנורמטיבי. המטפל והמטופל אמורים, לפי המודל הזה, לשאת באחריות משותפת
– גם אם לא שווה – בבחירת הטיפול הרצוי, אופן ביצועו, זהות מבצעו מיקומו ועיתויו.
ההגנה על האוטונומיה של המטופל, על זכותו לבחור סיפור חיים, לכתוב אותו ולנתב אותו
באופן מושכל על פי מידע שהמערכת המטפלת מספקת, מהווה כיום תמה מרכזית שלאורה
מתנהל השיח המלווה את הטיפול הרפואי, הן זה שמתקיים באופן אישי בין המטפל למטופל
והן זה שמכתיב את פרוטוקול המגעים שבין ספקי שירותי הבריאות לבין הצרכנים
המטופלים על ידן
בתחום המשפט הציבורי ( החוקתי, המנהלי והפלילי). בתחום המשפט הפרטי, בעיקר בדיני
. בעזרת תזה כזו, לוּ פוּתחה, 1 נזיקין, עיקרון זה כמעט ואינו נוכח, לפחות לא כתזה הוליסטית
ניתן היה להמשיג באופן קוהרנטי יותר תופעות משפטיות מזדמנות , ועם זאת מרכזיות
ורלוונטיות, ולהאחיד כמכלול כללים ספורדיים שמקורם בחקיקה נזיקית – כללית או
נקודתית – ובפסיקה הנרחבת, שא ר היה לה, בעשורים האחרונים , תפקיד מפתח בקידום
ובפיתוח משטר הנזיקין הישראלי.
מאמר זה בא לבחון את השאלה, אם, ועד כמה , ניתן לאתר בדיני הנזיקין הישראלים
שימוש חקיקתי ופסיקתי בכלים שעקרון המידתיות, כפי שהתפתח בענפי משפט אחרים,
מספק. בהמשך לאיתור דוגמאות לשימוש כזה , ועל בסיס הבנתו ומטרתו, נבקש להאיר את
תרומתו האפשרית לדיני הנזיקין , ולהציע לפתח אותו באופן מובנה ומסודר במסגרת מספר
סוגיות נזיקיות נורמטיביות ויישומיות , הן במישור קביעת האחריות הנזיקית – הקצאתה
וחלוקתה – והן במישור התרופתי – בחירת סוג הסעד הראוי, מידתו וחישובו.
בעשורים האחרונים. השינויים הללו משקפים התפתחויות חברתיות, תרבותיות, כלכליות
וטכנולוגיות, שרישומן משליך הן על מעמדו של הפרט-המטופל מול המערכת המטפלת בו,
שנדרשת לראות בו כיום שותף פעיל, והן על מעמד המטפל שהחברה והמשפט מטילים עליו
את האחריות להוציא מהכוח אל הפועל את האוטונומיה החדשה הזו של מי שבהם הוא
מטפל. דמות הרופא הכול יכול, המורם מעם, שעל פיו יישק דבר, אינה משקפת עוד את
האידיאל הנורמטיבי. המטפל והמטופל אמורים, לפי המודל הזה, לשאת באחריות משותפת
– גם אם לא שווה – בבחירת הטיפול הרצוי, אופן ביצועו, זהות מבצעו מיקומו ועיתויו.
ההגנה על האוטונומיה של המטופל, על זכותו לבחור סיפור חיים, לכתוב אותו ולנתב אותו
באופן מושכל על פי מידע שהמערכת המטפלת מספקת, מהווה כיום תמה מרכזית שלאורה
מתנהל השיח המלווה את הטיפול הרפואי, הן זה שמתקיים באופן אישי בין המטפל למטופל
והן זה שמכתיב את פרוטוקול המגעים שבין ספקי שירותי הבריאות לבין הצרכנים
המטופלים על ידן
Part II of this paper outlines the structure of Israeli tort law at large, stressing issues that will be later relevant to the specific topic at hand. Part III presents the leading Israeli PEL case law and then analyzes the current state of the law. In order to present the material in a “hands-on” manner, part VI provides nine fictional, but true-to-life, examples of economic loss. These examples are examined and discussed using Israeli case law and theory. This part is both challenging and effortless due to the unique state of the law as explained above. Effortless, because the current common trend in Israeli tort law points toward expanding liability in tort at large and in negligence in particular; challenging because to date, Israeli case law is devoid of any clear, binding analysis of this important issue.