One of the most common workplace accidents involves employees being injured by machinery. There is a common misconception that in every such accident, the employer bears full responsibility.<\/p>\n
In this information sheet, we will see that the issue is not so simple or clear-cut.
\nWe will present case law examples from which it becomes clear that the employer is not always found liable, and that there is tremendous importance in relying on a professional opinion by a safety expert in the field of machinery, in order to establish either the employer\u2019s liability or the contributory fault of the employee.\nThe Safety at Work Ordinance (New Version), 1970 addresses the obligations related to machinery. Section 37 defines which parts must be securely guarded, Section 45 deals with the protection of specific machine components, and Sections 40 and 43 authorize the Minister of Labor to enact regulations under this ordinance.\nHowever, although decades have passed since the law was enacted, no regulations regarding machine guarding have ever been issued.\nSection 37 itself has also left many questions regarding the proper and desired definition of \"secure guarding.\"\nIt is therefore no surprise that in a significant number of cases involving accidents caused by machinery, there is a need for expert opinions from machinery specialists.<\/p>\n
In the absence of clear and binding guidelines in both primary legislation and regulations, there is a growing need to rely on standards and safety procedures that outline proper rules regarding machine guarding and safe operation.\nIn 1980, the Standards Institution of Israel published Standard Specification MPMK 98, titled: \"Guards and Safety Devices for Machines: Protection Against Mechanical Hazards.\"\nAlthough this specification does not have binding legal status, it is frequently referred to as a commonly accepted benchmark in the absence of specific legislation.\nIn addition, experts often rely on safety manuals issued by the Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, as well as on foreign standards and publications.<\/p>\n
When examining an employer\u2019s protective measures regarding machinery, it is customary to refer to four categories of safeguards:\n(a) Guards,\n(b) Devices,\n(c) Work methods,\n(d) Marking, guidance, and signage.\n\nIn addition, the safety expert must assess liability in light of Sections 1 and 219 of the Ordinance, which place the duty to comply with legal requirements\u2014 in most cases\u2014on the \"occupier of the factory\" or the \"owner of the factory,\" and, in certain situations, on the owner of the machine located at the premises (Section 220), or on the agent or employee of the factory owner (Section 221).
\nSection 46 of the Ordinance prohibits the sale, marketing, or rental in Israel of any machine powered by mechanical force that does not comply with the legal requirements.\nThe law also places responsibility on the employee, who is obligated to use the devices or measures provided to him for the protection of his health or safety.\nAbove, we presented a brief selection of case law examples that illustrate the complexity of the issue.<\/p>\n
An employee was injured by a marble-cutting machine that was not securely guarded<\/strong>. *<\/strong> An employee walking past a grinding machine was injured when a fragment flew into his eye from the grinder. Employee Injured in the Hand by a Rubber Grinding Machine * The plaintiff was a chief formwork carpenter and the supervisor of a group of construction workers. A carpenter was instructed by his employer to cut wooden boards using a rotating mechanical saw<\/strong>. An employee at a bakery was injured when his hand was caught in a dough kneading machine While attending a carpentry course sponsored by the Ministry of Labor, the plaintiff injured his finger. A production worker and manager at a plastics factory was injured in his hand by a manufacturing machine.<\/strong> The plaintiff was engaged in sawing oak boards for the purpose of framing ceiling panels. While attending a carpentry course sponsored by the Ministry of Labor, the plaintiff injured his finger while using a \u201cLamello\u201d tool, which creates grooves in the edge of wooden boards using a round spring-loaded blade.<\/p>\n The Magistrate\u2019s Court ruled that in this case, the legal principles governing the duty of care owed by teachers to students, which are similar to the duties of parents toward children, do not apply, since this was a professional course for adults.\nThe plaintiff was 37 years old and had prior work experience as a mechanic, miller, and turner.\nHowever, the court noted that greater caution is required when dealing with students.<\/p>\n In order for the blade to emerge from the device and perform its function, both a power connection and manual pressure on the push handle are required.<\/p>\n The plaintiff had received training and was aware that the device must be disconnected from the power supply before cleaning, and that it should be cleaned using compressed air.\nDespite this, he did not disconnect the power, did not use compressed air, and did not call the instructor when a malfunction occurred\u2014all in violation of the written instructions and safety guidelines he had received.<\/p>\n The court rejected the claim that the device lacked proper guarding and ruled that it was a handheld tool that does not pose a danger when used normally, in accordance with the instructions and training the plaintiff had received.\nAccordingly, the defendants were not held liable for the incident.<\/p>\n The court rejected the claim that the device was unguarded and held that it was a handheld tool that does not pose a danger when used properly, in accordance with the instructions and training provided to the plaintiff.\nTherefore, the defendants were not held liable for the incident.\n{C.C. (Jerusalem) 14977\/00 Menahem Levi v. The Vocational Training School of the Ministry of Labor et al. (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 297, Additional Case Law)}<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n In this information sheet, we chose to address the well-known and common field of workplace accidents caused by the use of machinery.<\/p>\n We have selected a sample of court rulings from among the hundreds of decisions available on this subject, in order to highlight the lack of clarity and inconsistency in case law and legislation, as well as the importance of expert safety opinions in establishing the question of negligence\u2014or lack thereof\u2014and determining the employee\u2019s contributory fault, if any.<\/p>\n We would be happy to assist you in other areas of tort claims as well, by helping you select the most suitable expert and preparing a professional and reliable opinion ready for submission to the court.<\/p>\n For further information or to obtain an expert opinion on this matter or other tort-related issues \u2013 click here.<\/p>\n The information was prepared by Attorney Yael Pal-Hazan.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the most common workplace accidents involves employees being injured by machinery. There is a common misconception that in every such accident, the employer bears full responsibility. In this information page, we will show that the matter is not so simple or clear-cut. We will present examples from case law, from which it becomes evident that the employer is not always found\u2026<\/p>","protected":false},"author":120,"featured_media":8954,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-71"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/120"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8952\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipi.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe accident occurred when the employee\u2019s hand slipped toward an unguarded part of the machine, resulting in the amputation of his fingers.\nThe Supreme Court held the employer liable for violating a statutory duty by failing to securely guard the machine, as required under the Safety at Work Ordinance.\nThe Court ruled that the fact that the dangerous part of the machine had not been guarded by the manufacturer does not reduce the employer\u2019s responsibility.\n\nThe employee was assigned one-third contributory negligence, as he was an experienced worker and aware of the risk posed by the marble-cutting disc\u2014a hazard clearly visible to anyone who brings their hand near the rotating disc.\n{C.A. 1008\/93 Menashe Ezra v. Hertzel Ezra (Takdin\u2013Supreme Court 94(4), 360)}<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>An employee walking near a grinding machine was injured when a fragment flew into his eye.\nThe employer claimed that protective goggles had been provided and that the employee had failed to wear them.\nHowever, the Supreme Court ruled that the employee was not obligated to wear goggles, as he was not operating the grinder but merely standing nearby.\n\nThe employer had a duty to guard the grinder against flying fragments or sparks. By failing to do so, the employer violated the legal requirement to securely guard dangerous parts of machinery.\nThis duty applies not only to those operating the machine, but also to anyone in its vicinity.\n\nThe Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (\"the thing speaks for itself\") and, since the employer failed to prove lack of negligence, full liability was imposed, with no contributory negligence assigned to the employee.\n{C.A. 697\/72 Weismonsky v. Merkavim Metal Works Ltd. (P.D. 28(1), 429)}<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>The accident apparently occurred when the employee inserted his hand into the machine to clean out rubber residue\u2014something he was not permitted to do while the machine was operating and the power had not been disconnected.\nThe Supreme Court rejected the claim and held that the employer was not liable, after dismissing the plaintiff's argument that his hand had been pulled into the machine.\n\nThe opening into which the employee inserted his hand was intended solely for output, through which the ground rubber was discharged into a sack.\nThe blades and teeth inside the machine\u2014responsible for the grinding and capable of causing injury\u2014were located 10 cm away from the opening.\nUnless a person inserts their hand more than 10 cm deep into the machine, they cannot be harmed.
\nThe fact that, following the accident, the employer modified the opening by bending it downward\u2014making it necessary to contort the hand in an unusual manner to insert it\u2014does not indicate that the employer had been negligent for not making this modification in the first place.\nThe machine must be evaluated as it was on the day of the accident, and it was determined that it did not pose a risk that would impose a special duty of care on the employer.
\nThe claim of a dangerous work method was also rejected, and the Court held that the practice of tying a sack to the machine\u2019s opening to collect the ground rubber discharged from the machine was a reasonable work method.\nThe Court further ruled that, since the plaintiff was an experienced worker in the factory who had worked on various machines\u2014even though he had not previously operated this specific machine\u2014there was no need for a special warning regarding the dangers of inserting a hand into the machine.\nAny reasonable worker, the Court stated, is expected to exercise caution and refrain from inserting a hand into an operating electric machine.\n{C.A. 154\/62 Yefet Chashai v. Ingom Ltd. (P.D. 16, 1871)}<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>For the purpose of performing a concrete casting in a building, a mixing machine was operated, which included a water tank and a rotating drum. As the workers were about to lower the bucket in order to pour the drum\u2019s contents into it, the bucket failed to descend.\nThe plaintiff placed one foot on the machine\u2019s wheel support in an attempt to lower the bucket and was injured by the drum.\n\nThe District Court held that primary responsibility rested with the plaintiff himself, who placed his foot on the frame and violated safety regulations that prohibit stepping onto a concrete mixer while the motor is running.\nIt was indeed correct, as the plaintiff argued, that the absence of a legal requirement to guard a specific machine does not, in itself, prove that the machine is safe.\nHowever, in this case, the plaintiff was required to prove that the structure of the drum and the frame posed a danger to a worker acting reasonably\u2014and this was not proven.
\nIt was determined that the operation of the drum did not pose a danger to a worker standing nearby under normal conditions, and that 70% of the liability rested with the plaintiff himself.\nThe employer was assigned 30% liability, as it failed to ensure that those operating the machine received adequate instructions, relying only on a general prohibition against climbing onto the machine.\n\nGiven that the working conditions \"tempted\" workers, under certain circumstances, to violate the prohibition in order to speed up the work, proper supervision and monitoring should have been implemented to prevent hazardous actions.\n{C.C. (Tel Aviv) 1003\/63 Karpner v. The Construction Plant of the United Kibbutz Movement (P.M. 54, 180)}<\/p>\n
\nThe saw was part of a cutting machine composed of a fixed table and a conveyor belt. The wooden board to be cut was placed on the conveyor, which moved perpendicularly toward the rotating saw blade until the cut was completed.\nWhen the employee attempted to remove a leftover piece of wood that remained in his hand, his finger was struck by the rotating saw blade.\nThe blade was not guarded, and its exposed section\u2014protruding above the machine\u2019s fixed table\u2014was unprotected.
\nThe employer\u2019s claim\u2014that the accident would have occurred even if a guard had been installed, since the employee could have inserted his finger beneath it\u2014was rejected.\nThe court reaffirmed the legal principle that safety guards are intended to protect even negligent workers, and therefore, by failing to install a guard, the employer violated a statutory duty and was also negligent under the reasonable foreseeability standard.\n\nThe plaintiff was assigned 40% contributory negligence, due to the risk he created by reaching toward the blade, as well as by choosing to work without a guard, without a side barrier, without using a push stick to clear wood remnants, and without shutting off the motor\u2014all safety practices he was well aware of, given his extensive experience operating such machines.\n\n{C.C. (Be\u2019er Sheva) 165\/86 Zvi Cohen v. Haim Cohen (Takdin\u2013District 92(1), 962)}<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>The accident occurred when the employee\u2019s employer instructed him to check the consistency of the dough in the machine\u2014without providing any guidance on how to perform the task.\nWhen the container is full of dough, the rotating mixing blades are not visible. The appellant inserted his hand into the machine while it was running, and his hand was caught in the blades and amputated.\n\nThe employers were convicted in criminal proceedings for failing to instruct the appellant before assigning the task, for not guarding a dangerous part of the machine, and for not installing a mechanism that would automatically prevent the operator from coming into contact with hazardous parts.\n\nThe dispute before the Supreme Court focused on the issue of contributory negligence, specifically whether and to what extent the appellant was at fault for inserting his hand into an operating machine without first cutting the power.
\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the level of caution required from an employer should not be imposed on the employee toward himself, and contributory negligence should not be assigned to an injured employee, unless in clear cases where the employee\u2019s fault is plainly evident as a cause of the accident.\nIt was held that the employee bore no contributory negligence in this case.\n\nThe employer filed a third-party notice against the machine supplier, from whom the machine had been purchased, claiming that the supplier had sold a defective machine to the employer.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>While attending a carpentry course sponsored by the Ministry of Labor, the plaintiff injured his finger while using a tool known as a \u201cLamello\u201d\u2014a machine that creates grooves in the side of a wooden board using a round, spring-loaded blade.\n\nThe Magistrate\u2019s Court ruled that the legal principles governing the duty of care owed by teachers to students\u2014akin to the duty of parents toward children\u2014do not apply in this case, as it involved a professional course for adults.\nThe plaintiff was 37 years old, with prior experience working as a mechanic, miller, and turner.\nHowever, the court emphasized that greater caution is required when dealing with students.\n\nThe Supreme Court held that the Defective Products Liability Law does not apply in this case, since it was not proven that the person who sold the machine to the defendants qualified as a \u201cmanufacturer\u201d under the law.\n\nA third-party notice filed under tort law against the machine\u2019s seller was also rejected, because the causal link was severed between the third party\u2019s acts or omissions and the accident, due to the employers\u2019 own negligence\u2014namely, their failure to install appropriate safety measures and to supervise the work being carried out.\n\n{C.A. 3769\/97 Shimon Dahan et al. v. Dani Aviva et al. (P.D. 53(5), 581)}<\/p>\n
\nThe District Court did not accept the employee\u2019s version of the incident and found that he had inserted his hand through the top opening of the machine, which stood approximately 1.65 meters tall, without opening the designated inspection window. This window was intended to allow safe observation of the machine\u2019s operation and functioned as a safety valve, automatically stopping the machine when opened.\n\nThe court ruled that the duty to guard is not absolute, and in this case, the machine was in fact properly guarded.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s action was not instinctive\u2014it was deliberate. He was thoroughly familiar with the machine and intentionally attempted to bypass its safety mechanism.\n\nThe court held that an employer cannot be expected to foresee such conduct, and under these circumstances, there was no breach of duty by the employer.\nThe claim was therefore dismissed.\n{C.A. (Tel Aviv) 1407\/00 Falah Bani v. Yeda Plast Ltd. (unpublished)}<\/p>\n
\nToward the end of the workday, the plaintiff was tasked with cutting wood into slices 5 cm wide.\nHe performed the cutting using a circular saw machine (\"Kreiss\u00e4ge\").\nDuring the sawing process, his right hand was placed on the board, pushing it forward, while his left hand was on the left side of the board, pressing it toward the blade.\nSuddenly, for reasons even the plaintiff could not explain, his left hand shifted position, and his fingers were severed by the rotating saw blade.\n\nThe Magistrate\u2019s Court ruled that the plaintiff lost concentration, his attention was diverted, and his left hand slipped toward the blade.\nIt was also determined that the machine\u2019s safety guard had been removed in order to perform wood-grooving work, which the guard obstructed.\n\nThe court found that operating a saw without a guard was improper and unsafe, and therefore, the employer was held liable.\n\nNo contributory negligence was assigned to the plaintiff, due to the lack of warning signage, lack of instruction, and because it was not proven that the plaintiff was aware the safety guard had been removed.\n\nNaturally, any reasonable worker\u2014such as the plaintiff\u2014engaged in monotonous work over a full workday may experience a brief moment of distraction.\nSuch a momentary lapse does not constitute contributory negligence.
\nThe guard or protective barrier is intended to prevent precisely such injuries.\nEven if it is not technically possible to fully guard the machine, this does not absolve the employer of liability, and the employer is required to compensate the injured employee.\n{C.C. (Tel Aviv) 40807\/97 Nissim Bechar v. Micha Avir et al. (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 300, Additional Case Law, 27\/6\/2002)}<\/p>\n