A 64-year-old employee lifted a 100 kg iron door together with three other workers and sustained a back injury.

Sounds familiar?
Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of lawsuits filed in court by employees who sustained back injuries as a result of lifting heavy loads.
In this review, we will see that the legal situation is far more complex than previously assumed, due to the absence of a binding law or standard in the country that clarifies the employer’s duty of care, along with inconsistent case law that does not provide a clear determination regarding employer liability on this issue.
The Safety at Work Ordinance (New Version), 1970, states in Section 172 that "the Minister may enact regulations determining the maximum weight of loads that employees in factories or other workplaces may lift, carry, or move."

This authority has not been exercised with regard to adult workers, and although 32 years have passed since the Minister of Labor was instructed to enact regulations, the directive has yet to be implemented. Israeli legislation, with the exception of youth employment, contains no provisions regarding the maximum permissible weight for manual lifting. There is no official Israeli standard, with the force of law, concerning manual material handling. The absence of written legal guidance in Hebrew has created a need for guidelines on manual load handling activities.

One of the experts from the "Experts Forum," who provides professional opinions in the specific field of load lifting, served as the coordinator for the topic of "manual material handling" at the Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene. He translated a French document published by the French Institute for Safety, which, since its publication, has also been adopted in Israel and serves as a guiding reference in the planning of manual handling activities, alongside various safety standards and regulations from around the world. This document states, for example, that the maximum weight for a single unit in occasional manual handling by a 64–65-year-old man is 20 kg. There is also Israeli Standard Specification MPMK 297, which does not have legal status and is considered a recommendation, dealing with manual material handling. This specification refers to an American document that sets the maximum weight at 20 kg.

A comparative international study from February 1997 reviews practices in various countries. The study shows that each country has established different norms regarding the maximum permissible weight for lifting by adults. In light of the high number of work-related accidents caused by lifting loads, one would have expected the Minister of Labor to finally fulfill his obligation and enact regulations to guide employers in their operations and assist the courts in determining liability. A statutory directive requiring a minister to enact regulations constitutes a legal obligation. Therefore, the employers of a worker who injured his back after lifting a wooden board weighing 30 kg attempted to claim that the state was negligent in failing to enact such regulations. The Haifa District Court rejected the employer’s argument, ruling that even when a regulator fails to fulfill his obligation to enact regulations, this alone does not impose a duty of care on the state toward the individual harmed by the absence of such regulations. The employer bears the duty of care toward his employee and should have foreseen the outcome of his negligent conduct, whether regulations existed or not (Haifa Civil Appeal 4758/98 Oranim Silencer Ltd. v. State of Israel – Ministry of Labor, P.M. 5759 (2) 510). The situation becomes even more complex when attempting to determine the duty of care in the matter of heavy load lifting based on existing case law.

The case law on this subject is extensive and varied (see an in-depth review of safety regulations and existing rulings in the book: "Liability for Workplace Injuries", by D. Engel, Attorney Y. Pal-Hazan, and Engineer Gideon Engel, pages 366–381).
For example, in the case of Eliyahu Shitrit v. Supersol (C.C. [Haifa] 8599/93, Takdin–Shalom, Vol. 97(2), p. 3898), the employer was found liable for an employee’s back injury caused by lifting a load of approximately 26 kg, while contributory negligence of 20% was assigned to the employee, who failed to inform the employer about his back pain and continued to lift heavy loads without appropriate equipment.

In contrast, if we return to the elderly man with whose case we began this review, the Supreme Court ruled that a load of 100 kg lifted by four people is not considered excessively heavy for a 64-year-old individual (C.A. 214/58 Alexei Kirilin v. Avraham Sabransky, P.D. 12, 1727). And now, back to real life.

There is no doubt that the complexity of the issue, as demonstrated above, necessitates the involvement of a professional opinion from a safety expert who specializes specifically in this field, is thoroughly familiar with all relevant rules and guidelines in Israel and abroad, is experienced in evaluating work methods and safety procedures on a case-by-case basis, and can substantiate their position regarding the presence or absence of liability. The need to appoint an expert in the matter of load lifting becomes even more compelling in light of the fact that the weight of the lifted load is only one of the variables influencing the risk of back injury. Other contributing factors include the lifting method, the employee’s age, gender, and health condition, the height of the lift, and many other factors.

We would be happy to cooperate with you on additional matters as well, including assisting in selecting the most suitable expert for the case you are handling, from the extensive and diverse pool of professionals working with the “Experts Forum.”

Human Safety
The information was prepared by Attorney Yael Pal-Hazan.