In the case Antoinette Cachia vs David Galea and Henry Harry Aquilina, decided by Hon. Miriam Hayman on the 24th January 2018 presiding in the First Hall Civil Court, the plaintiff asked the Court to find the defendant responsible for damages following a road accident that took place on the 6th November 2009 which resulted in personal injury and the total loss of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff also asked the Court to liquidate damages in her favour, including loss of earnings due to the fact that she could not work for nine months while she was recovering from the injuries caused by the incident.
The Facts
The plaintiff told the Court that her son (co-defendant Mr. Aquilina) was driving her car down Triq is-Salini, and as he stopped at a junction to turn off the main road into a side road, she heard a loud explosive sound and felt the impact from the left rear side of the vehicle. Mr. Aquilina told the Court that before turning into the side road, he used his indicator and stopped at the junction to check for incoming traffic before crossing. He claimed that it was dark at the time of the incident and he did not see any cars and therefore he went ahead into the road as he did not see Mr. Galea’s car. Mr. Galea told the Court that as he driving on Triq is-Salini, heading towards Naxxar, Mr. Aquilina’s car suddenly obstructed his passage as it crossed the carriageway and therefore he should not be held responsible for the damages caused to the plaintiff as the incident occurred due to Mr. Aquilina’s negligence and imprudence.
Legal Considerations
The Court, with reference to other local and foreign judgments, confirmed that every driver must keep a proper look out which means that the level of diligence required from every driver on the road is that of a bonus paterfamilias. This means that a driver must drive diligently, taking into consideration conditions including light, visibility and road conditions and that a driver has the duty to keep a reasonable look out meaning that he has a duty to see what is in plain view.
Unfortunately, although the sergeant on duty could not determine the point of impact, he noted that there were no break marks. This implies that the drivers involved in the disputed incident did not see each other, and the fact that the drivers admitted that neither of them saw each other’s vehicle, therefore neither of them were maintaining a proper look out.
Photos of the two vehicles indicated that the front right side of Mr. Galea’s car hit the rear passenger side of Mr. Aquilina’s car, which had crossed the main road into a side road. The Court held that the driver turning into the main road has a duty to apply a higher level of care to ensure that his manoeuvre is safe before crossing into the path of traffic from the main road.
Conclusion
The Court therefore concluded that both defendants contributed equally to the incident, as provided in Article 1033 of the Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta, regarding responsibility of damages which states
Any person who, with or without intent to injure, voluntarily or through negligence, imprudence, or want of attention, is guilty of any act or omission constituting a breach of the duty imposed by law, shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom.
The Court quantified damages and liquidated said damages in favour of the plaintiff.
Dr. Elise Dingli is an Advocate at GANADO Advocates