Irit Shemesh v. Focaccetta Ltd.
Israel Supreme Court
LCA 9615/05 (2006)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In 2005, Irit Shemesh (plaintiff) was pregnant when she and her children dined at Focaccetta Ltd. (defendant). Another diner at the restaurant began smoking while Shemesh and her family were eating. Shemesh complained to the restaurant about the other customer smoking; however, the smoking continued. At this time, Israel’s Restriction of Smoking Law limited smoking in public places, such as restaurants, and required restaurant owners to place signage and take other steps to limit the exposure of nonsmokers to the dangers of secondhand smoke. The smoking restriction did not include a means for individuals to receive compensation from a business owner who failed to comply with the law. Israeli authorities made few efforts to enforce the restriction. Shemesh filed a lawsuit in small-claims court against Focaccetta. The small-claims court found that the restaurant had violated the law and awarded Shemesh the cost of the meal with interest, approximately NIS 112. Shemesh applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the compensation was too little given that the exposure to smoke had caused irreparable harm to her health. The district court denied the appeal, reasoning that although there were grounds to award a higher amount of compensation, the amount awarded was not unreasonable. Shemesh then appealed to the Israel Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rubinstein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.