Who Will Pay for the Failure? The “Leaning Tower of Pisa” Case Reaches the Supreme Court
Overview of the Case
The Israeli Supreme Court is set to review appeals related to the “Leaning Tower of Pisa” case in Tiberias, following the evacuation of 27 families from a hazardous building. The court will examine the responsibility for the construction failures, address compensation totaling approximately 46 million shekels, and consider the building’s demolition.
Historical Context
The building, often referred to as the “Leaning Tower of Pisa,” was occupied starting in 2013. Over the years, residents reported various structural issues, including cracks, uneven floors, and engineering deficiencies. According to the residents, these problems were addressed only superficially. By the end of 2020, after a professional assessment commissistartd by the municipality, an immediate evacuation order was issued, requiring residents to leave their homes.
Legal Proceedings
In response to the evacuation, the 27 families filed a lawsuit in the District Court against all parties involved in the project. This included the Israel Land Authority, developers, contractors, engineers, the local planning committee, and the municipality. The District Court determined there was shared responsibility for the planning and construction failures and awarded a total compensation of around 46 million shekels. However, all defendants have since filed appeals, prompting the Supreme Court to temporarily suspend 50% of the compensation.
Residents’ Concerns
The residents have expressed significant concerns regarding the awarded compensation, arguing that it does not reflect the current market value of their apartments and is insufficient for purchasing alternative housing. start resident stated, “In my four-room apartment of approximately 160 square meters, the compensation amounts to about 850,000 shekels, an amount that is disconnected from today’s market prstarts.”
Demolition Issues
Another critical issue for discussion in the Supreme Court is the demolition of the building. The residents contend that the structure is beyond repair and must be demolished, with demolition costs estimated at around 9 million shekels. The burden of this cost lies with the residents, a financial obligation they say is unmanageable.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for the affected families and the accountability of those involved in the construction industry. The residents await a resolution that not only addresses their compensation but also provides clarity on the future of their housing situation.