A court of criminal appeal has rejected an appeal by the Roads Department and Enemalta Corporation regarding a road accident for which the two entities were apportioned part of the blame and for which they are being held responsible for damages.

The case concerned the late Maurice Laferla, who was seriously injured after he was involved in an accident in Valley Road, Msida on 6 December 1998. Mr Laferla had tried to avoid an obstacle in the road, had hit a centre strip and crashed into a wall.

His car, a Mitsubishi Lancer, was declared “beyond economical repair” and following the accident, Mr Laferla, together with his wife Joyce, sued the Roads Department, the Works Department director-general, Enemalta Corporation and the director of the Department of Manufacturing and Services.

Mr and Mrs Laferla had held these entities responsible for the damages they sustained during the accident, since they said the road had not been well-lit and the lines painted on the road were in a very bad state.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had ruled that the director of the Roads Department and Enemalta Corporation each had a 35 per cent responsibility for the accident, while Mr Laferla held 30 per cent of the responsibility.

The director of the Roads Department and Enemalta Corporation were ordered to pay Mr and Mrs Laferla Lm840 each in damages.

However, the director of the Roads Department and Enemalta Corporation had both appealed, on the grounds that Mr Laferla’s negligence and the excessive speed at which he was driving were the primary causes of the accident.

The Appeals Court did not uphold their appeal and ruled that the lines painted on the road gave a bad configuration of the road and misled motorists.

As confirmed by the police, who investigated the case, the court confirmed that the road was not well-lit. The police had said that: “it has to be pointed out that this area, which lacks lighting, has rendered the road dangerous to drivers and as such, the centre strip cannot be seen, considering the bend and curve”.

The court also ruled that excessive speeding was not the determining cause of the accident, although it was undoubtedly a contributor.

As a result, the Appeals Court rejected the appeal from the Roads Department director and Enemalta Corporation and confirmed the first court’s judgement.

Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti presided over the case.