- The Torts Ordinance [New Version], §§ 35–36.
- CA 243/83 Municipality of Jerusalem v Gordon 39(1) PD 113, 128 (1985); CA 145/80 Vaknin v Local Council of Beit Shemesh 37(1) PD 113, 114 (1982); CA 343/74 Grubner v Municipality of Haifa 30(1) PD 141 (1974).
- Gordon, 39(1) PD, 130; Vitkin, 37(1) PD, 114.
- CA 415/64 Avrahami v Mayor, Council Members, and Citizens of Tel Aviv Yafo 19(1) PD 114, 119 (1965); CA 312/63 Alon v Peled 17 PD 2572, 2574 (1963).
- Torts Ordinance [New Version] § 36.
- Ibid.
- Most apartment buildings in Israel are in condominium form, in which each person owns their apartment and has a shared interest with other apartment owners in the steps, roof and other common portions of the property.
- Sales Law (Apartments) (Assurance of the Investment of Apartment Purchasers), 5735–1974, § 2(1).
- The guarantee is issued pursuant to the statute, Ibid.
- CA 8068/01 Ayalon Insurance Co Ltd v Administrator of the Opalgar Estate 59(2) 349 (2004).
- Ibid, 370–71.
- Torts Ordinance [New Version], introduction to § 35. On the economic basis for negligent behavior, see Ronen Perry, “The Basis for Negligent Behavior in the Tort of Negligence: Posi-tivist Theory and Normative Critique” (2008) 38 Mishpatim 351.
- CA 3124/90 Sabag v Amsalem 49(1) PD 102, 109 (1995).
- Additional Civil Hearing 1740/91 Barclays Discount Bank Ltd v Prust 47(5) PD 31, 48 (1993).
- US v Carroll Towing 159 F2d 169 (2d Cir 1947).
- CA 3124/90 Sebag v Amsalem, 108–09; CA 343/74 Grubner v Municipality of Haifa 30(1) PD 141 (1974).
- Environmental impact statements are required in some cases under the Building and Planning Law, 5725–1965, and the Building and Planning Regulations (Environmental Impact Statements), 5763–2003.
- Business Licensing Law, 5728–1968, §§ 1, 5, 7; Business Licens ing Order, 5755–1995.
- Law on Prevention of Marine Pollution from Dry Land Sources, 5748–1988.
- Clean Air Act, 5768–2008.
- For additional conditions, see GD Vinter, Project Finance (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edn, 2006).
- Edwards v First Nat'l Bank of North East 112 Md App 96, 712 A 2d 33 (Md App 1998).
- Nischke v Farmers & Merchants Bank & Trust 187 Wis 2d 96, 522 NW 2d 542 (1994).
- The case is described in LP Shnapf, “Lender Liability Today under Environmental Laws” (2006) 60 Consumer Finance Law Quarterly Report 147, 164.
- See supra text accompanying nn 11–14 in the fi rst part of this article.
- See M Dore, Law of Toxic Torts (Thomson Reuter/Westlaw, 2009 update), § 7.8.
- Torts Ordinance [New Version] § 76(1).
- Additional Hearing 12/63 Leon v Ringer 18(4) PD 701, 716 (1964).
- Torts Ordinance [New Version] § 64.
- CA 119/86 Kanei Homes, Ltd v Local Planning and Building Com mission of Netanya 46(5) PD 727, 747–48 (1992).
- Yisrael Gilad, “A Reexamination of Causation in Israeli Tort Law” (1984) 14 Mishpatim 15, 16.
- CA 145/80 Vaknin v Local Council of Beit Shemesh 37(1) PD 113, 130 (1982); CA 576/80 Ben Shimon v Barda 38(3) PD 7 (1984); Gilad, Ibid, 24–26.
- On the systems for evaluating circumstantial evidence, the mathematical cumulative system and the inductive cumulative system, see CA 1639/01 Kibbutz Ma'ayan Tzvi v Krishov 58(5) 225, 283–84 (2004). The case deals with injury to a worker in a facility where asbestos was used. See also D Fish, Environmental Law in Israel (Machshavot), 220 (5762-2002); Dore, supra n 26, §§ 27.1–6.
- Torts Ordinance [New Version] § 64(2).
- CA 684, 692, 697/76 Eyal v Foxman 31(3) 349, 358 (1977); Ben Shimon, 38(3) PD, 8–10; Kanei Homes, 46(5) PD, 748–49.
- Torts Ordinance [New Version] § 44.
- See supra text accompanying nn 43–45 in the fi rst part of this article.
- RPA 3049/07 (Jer) PDW–Israel National Roads Co Ltd v Ken (17 September 2007), Nevo Legal Database (by subscription).
- Other statutes also arguably impose liability on those who control the polluter. See supra text accompanying nn 40–42 in the fi rst part of this article. They do not, however, make violation of the statute a private nuisance. The Clean Air Act 5768-2008 provides that a person who can control the pollution may be violating the statute and also provides that such a violation is a tort, but does not make it specifically a private nuisance action. See supra text accompanying nn 46 and 57 in the first part of this article.
- See supra text accompanying n 86 in the first part of this article. Furthermore, it is not clear that a bank should appropriately be viewed as a semi-public body. See R Plato Shinar, Banking Law: The Bank's Fiduciary Duty (Israel Bar Publishing House, 2010), 60.
- See supra text accompanying nn 40–51 in the first part of this article.
- Torts Ordinance [New Version], § 11(a).
- Companies Law, 5759–1999, § 11(a).
- Proposed Corporations Law, 5756–1995, Proposed Laws No 2423, Explanatory Comments, p 2430.
- Y Bahat, “The Purpose and Goals of the Corporation in the Proposed Corporations Law, 5756–1995” (1998) 1 Sha'arei Mishpat 277, 280; Y Bahat, Corporations – The New Statute and the Law (Borse, 8th edn, 2007), 195, 220; E Bukspan, The Social Transformation of Business Law (Sacher Institute, 2007), 522; T Cohen, Corporate Shareholders – Litigation Rights and Remedies (Israel Bar Publishing House, 2nd edn, 2006), 354–58. For sources taking the position that there is a real obligation to consider the public interest, see Y Stern, “Corporate Goal: Interpretation and Ramifications” (2002) 32 Mishpatim 329, 355; J Gross, The New Corporations Law (Israel Bar Publishing House, 2000), 31.
- Z Goshen, “A Critique of the New Corporations Law: Goal of the Corporation, Acquisition Tender Offer, and Class Action” (2002) 32 Mishpatim 381, 383; Bahat, supra n 45, 221, 254.
- See Bukspan, supra n 45, 423, 427–28.
- See Ibid, 519–31; Stern, supra n 46, 343, 358–65. Stern admits that it is doubtful whether the provision will change corporate behavior. Ibid, 369.
- Cf Bahat, Corporations, supra n 45, 254, which explicitly says there is an obligation to consider the public interest in cases of a tangible and immediate environmental injury, even if the injury would not be certain to impose criminal or tort liability on the corporation.
- M Mautner, “Those Who Create Risks and Those Who Encounter the Risks: The Defense of Reliance on a Representation in the New Civil Legislation” (1986) 16 Mishpatim 92, 106–07.
- See eg, CA(TA) 2539/01 Joseph Ovadia & Sons Ltd v Discount Bank of Israel, Ltd 2005(1) Tak-Mechozi (by subscription) 5119, § 8 (2005).
- 52 Cf CA 8343/01 Ovadia v Sea Belle Nahariya, Ltd (In Receiver ship) 55(6) PD 400 (2004) (buyers promised vacation apartments, including recreational facilities and appropriate development of the surrounding areas, but received only regular apartments); Request CC (Magistrates Court TA) 93787/01 Tefachot Mort gage Bank of Israel, Ltd v Nataf 2002(4) Tak-Shalom 9170 (2002) (by subscription) (purchasers were promised a store with a covered outside seating area, but, due to the inability to obtain the necessary building permit, they received the store without a roof on the outside seating area).
- Nataf, 2002(4) Tak-Shalom 9170, at § 15; Y Bahat, “Construction Financing through a Closed Account: Collateral and the Bank's Liability” (2003) 55 Hapraklit 56, 68–70.
Law and Financial Markets Review
Volume 5, 2011 - Issue 6