Torts Ordinance [New Version]: the sections this site discusses

When the harm caused is damage to reputation and not physical damage, the practical route is representation in defamation claims, alongside the tort of negligence.

What the law provides

Section 35 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] defines the tort of negligence by an objective test: negligent conduct is a situation in which a person did “an act that a reasonable, prudent person would not have done in the same circumstances”, or failed to do an act that a reasonable, prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. The Ordinance does not examine the subjective intention of the wrongdoer, but compares their conduct with the hypothetical standard of a reasonable, prudent person in the same circumstances. For the negligent conduct to entitle the injured person to compensation, the wrongdoer must have breached a duty of care that they owed to the injured person (as section 36 makes clear), and the breach must have caused actual damage: to the body, to property or to another protected right.

Section 36 of the Ordinance complements section 35 and sets out toward whom the duty of care applies: it is owed “toward every person and toward the owner of any property”, in any case in which a reasonable person should have foreseen that they might, in the ordinary course of things, be harmed by the act or the omission. This broad scope also allows a person who was not a direct party to an interaction with the wrongdoer (for example, someone harmed indirectly by another’s conduct) to sue for the tort of negligence, provided that the harm to them could have been foreseen in the ordinary course of things.

A numerical example

Suppose a customer is injured by a fall at the entrance to a shop, because of a wet floor that was not fenced off or marked with a warning sign, and the shop owner knew about the leak about two hours before the accident and did nothing to fix it. In such a case the court may find that the shop owner acted in a way that a reasonable, prudent person would not have acted (section 35), and because the owner should have foreseen that customers might be harmed by the wet floor (section 36), the owner is liable in tort toward the injured customer. If the customer’s medical treatment cost NIS 4,500 and the sick days caused to them led to a loss of earnings of NIS 3,200, the financial damage in the claim will be NIS 7,700, in addition to any compensation awarded for pain and suffering.

For more on aspects of tort liability that are relevant to the digital and consumer world, see the guides Legal liability for AI: who is responsible when the algorithm gets it wrong? and Credit card disputes, and the content hub on digital commerce.

The sections the site discusses

This page brings together 2 sections of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] that are discussed in 2 guides on this site. The title of each section is the marginal note of the consolidated version of the Ordinance (unofficial translation), not a heading we wrote. For the legal content itself, go to the relevant guide or to the original text of the Ordinance. The last column links to the guides on this site that discuss that section.

The original text of the law

• Torts Ordinance [New Version]: text of the Ordinance
• Torts Ordinance [New Version]: consolidated version on Nevo (Israeli legal database)

FAQ

What test does the court apply to decide whether conduct was negligent?
Section 35 of the Torts Ordinance sets an objective test: the question is whether the defendant did an act (or failed to do an act) that a reasonable, prudent person would not have done (or would have done) in the same circumstances. The court does not examine the defendant’s subjective intention, but compares their conduct with the accepted standard of conduct.

Can you sue someone for the tort of negligence if you had no direct interaction with them at all?
Yes, under certain conditions. Section 36 of the Ordinance provides that the duty of care is owed “toward every person and toward the owner of any property” who a reasonable person should have foreseen might be harmed by the act or the omission. So, for example, a person harmed indirectly by another’s negligent conduct may be entitled to compensation, if the harm to them could have been foreseen.

What do I have to prove to win a negligence claim?
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care (section 36), that the defendant breached the duty by behaving in a way that departs from the standard of a “reasonable, prudent person” (section 35), and that the breach actually caused them damage. The absence of any one of these three elements may lead to the claim being dismissed.

Does the tort of negligence also apply to an omission, and not only to an active act?
Yes. Section 35 also applies to a case in which a person “did not do an act that a reasonable, prudent person would have done in the same circumstances”. In other words, a failure to act (an omission) may also be considered negligent conduct, if a reasonable person in the defendant’s place would have acted differently.

Is the negligence of a professional, such as a doctor, examined by the same test?
Section 35 sets an express test for this: a person is also negligent if, “in a certain occupation, they did not use the skill, or did not take the degree of care, that a reasonable, prudent person qualified to work in that occupation would have used or taken in the same circumstances”. In other words, a professional (for example, a doctor, a dentist or an engineer) is measured against a reasonable professional in the same field, and not against an ordinary person. Here too, a duty of care toward the injured person (section 36) and damage caused by negligence are required.

This page collects the references to legislation on the site. The section headings are the marginal notes as worded in the consolidated text of the law, and are not our interpretation. The binding text is the one published in Sefer HaHukim (the official gazette of statutes). The content here is general information and is not legal advice. Translated: 12 November 2026 · Hebrew version updated: 13 October 2026.