Adv. Gill Nadel, Keydar Halaly
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal for a verdict of the District Court, in which it was decided that a taxi driver owed damages on a cargo he delivered.
The facts of the case:
A medical equipment company ordered services from a customs agents company for an internal delivery of cargo from the airport warehouses to its property. The customs agents company hired the services of a taxi driver to execute the delivery.
The cargo arrived to its destiny partially wet and damaged. The insurance company of the medical equipment company compensated it for the damages and filed a subrogation claim against the customs agents company and against the taxi driver. During the trial, which was handled in the district Court, the only dispute that arose was how the responsibility should be divided between the customs agents company and the taxi driver.
The District Court decided that the taxi driver was fully responsible for the damages and obliged him to to the insurance company the full compensation which was paid to the insured- a sum of $21,000. The taxi driver filed an appeal to the Supreme Court on the District Court’s verdict.
The Taxi Driver’s Claims to the District Court & the Supreme Court
The taxi driver claimed that no one bothered to inform him of the high value of the cargo and of its sensitivity to wetness, especially as it heavily rained on the day of the delivery. Furthermore, he claimed that force majure was in play and therefore he was exempted from the liability of unavoidable damages. Furthermore, he claimed that his behavior was reasonable and there was not any negligence on his behalf, and that he shouldn't have had to assume, without being notified that the cargo was sensitive and unusual, and either way, he claimed that the customs agents company should be held liable, as they did not warn him or give him specific instructions as how to handle the cargo.
The claims of the customs agents to the District Court:
The customs agents company claimed that the taxi driver made similar deliveries for it many times in the past, and that in this particular case he knew the delivery consisted of medical equipment since it was not the first time he made deliveries for that (medical) company. It further claimed that the taxi driver signed and approved that he received the cargo wholly and to his satisfaction, and dry. Furthermore, the customs agent company claimed that the taxi driver can not be released of his obligation on the grounds of a higher force since he did not prove that the damage was unpredictable and he did not prove he could not have prevented the damage if he would have used reasonable precautions.
Among the claims, it was also claimed that although it was an extremely rainy day, it is not by any means a rare phenomenon of nature which can not be foreseen and in any case, the taxi driver could have waited until the rain weakened.
The Supreme court’s decision on the request for permission to appeal :
The Supreme court decided that the District court’s decision should not be meddled with and rejected the taxi driver’s claims, stating that the taxi driver did not manage to convince the court that he was not negligent in regards to the damage caused to the cargo and did not provide any logical explanation as to how the cargo got wet.
The Supreme court further stated that the customs agents company was not obliged to give the taxi driver any special warning since he had made similar deliveries for the same customer in the past, and he was aware that the transfer of medicine was involved.
Later on, the Supreme court stated that the taxi driver did not show that there were higher force circumstances which excuse him from taking responsibility even though it was a particularly rainy day since this was a known fact and not an unpredictable phenomenon, which one could not expect or take precautions from.
Eventually, the taxi driver’s request for an appeal was rejected without hearing the response of the customs agents company and without obliging the taxi driver to pay the expenses of the procedure.
(Request for civil appeal 9708/09, judge A. Rivlin, Decision from 26.1.11)
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
