This case was an appeal from a judgement delivered by the First Hall, Civil Court on 12 May 2004.

This concerned a traffic accident that occurred in December 1998 in Triq il-Wied, Msida, when Laferla (today deceased) was driving and his car hit a centre strip.

This caused Laferla to lose control of the car and crash into a wall.

The basis of this action was that the accident happened because the road was not properly lit up and because there were no road signs and insufficient lines on the road that deceived the driver. The roads were allegedly not in a good state and such lack of maintenance, Laferla claimed, had caused this accident leading to his suffering both physically and financially since his car was written off as being “beyond economical repair”.

The Director of Roads claimed that the accident had occurred due to sheer negligence, carelessness and non-observance of traffic regulations on Laferla’s part.

The road was properly maintained and had all the proper signs and markings.

The First Hall, Civil Court had delivered a judgement to the effect that responsibility had to be apportioned in the following manner: 35 per cent of liability was to be borne by the Director of Roads for not maintaining the road in a manner to prevent danger, 35 per cent by Enemalta and the rest of the liability was the driver’s since he was deemed to have been over-speeding considering that he was driving in the dark.

The plaintiff had lost about Lm1,680 when he sold his car for a mere Lm600 after the wreck.

The First Hall had condemned the Director of Public Roads and Enemalta to pay Laferla Lm840 each, hence amounting to Lm1,680.

The Director and Enemalta Corporation both appealed to the judgement of the First Hall.

The Director claimed:

• the accident had occurred due to the driver’s negligence. The driver was allegedly not driving on the left-hand side of the road but instead, in the middle of the road at the time of the accident;

•it was not necessary that the centre strip was perfectly aligned with the white line;

• the place where the accident took place was one of the main roads in Malta and it was certain that it was not the driver’s first time passing from that road;

• since the road was not well lit, the driver should have taken additional precautions to ensure his safety as a driver as well as the safety of others.

Enemalta Corporation claimed that the driver had failed to keep a proper look-out in violation of the fundamental rule that all drivers should be alert and conscious of their surroundings to be able to react to any possible eventuality.

The corporation claimed that the proximate cause was indeed the velocity at which Laferla was driving and not, as alleged and decided by the Court, other factors.

The fact that the road was in darkness imposed upon the driver an obligation to drive with a higher standard of care and attention.

The Court of Appeal noted that soon after the accident, the Director of Roads had ordered that another white line be painted alongside the existing one to direct drivers properly.

The driver was allegedly following the white line that ultimately misdirected him because of the lack of light on the road in question.

Works were also carried out on the centre strip after this accident and the street light was soon after also functioning.

The Court quoted the Balzan v. Ciantar (2006) case where the Court had stated that it is a fundamental principle that every driver must keep a proper look-out.

Yet the Court continued that the responsibility for the accident in question should be determined by examining first and foremost the factors that provoked such an accident and not the driver’s reaction to such factor upon being faced with it.

Case-law has revealed that the fact that the driver drives on the “crown of the road” is not a decisive factor with regard to his responsibility (Ellul v. Muscat – 1999)

However, the Court of Appeal stated that Laferla was neither driving in the middle of the road not on the wrong side of the road.

He was merely driving in line with the white line painted on the ground.

The Court said that it was understandable that Laferla did not expect to collide with the centre strip once he was following the line.

There were absolutely no signs to alert the driver of the existence of such centre strip. It was also brought to the Court of Appeal’s attention that the Msida local council had on numerous occasions brought such deficiencies to the attention of the Department of Roads.

The Court went on to quote case-law and essentially laid down that when such damages could be prevented by ordinary preventive diligence of the public authority in question, such authority is answerable for any damages to the detriment of third parties.

Further evidence reported that “Other investigations showed that the area in question lacks lighting and that the centre strip thereat had the indication sign which is normally lit, missing… It is to be pointed out that this area, which lacks lighting has rendered the road dangerous to drivers as such centre strip cannot be seen considering the bend and curve and the lack of lighting caused by the same bridge. The divisional police have tried several times to contact the Enemalta Corporation, Marsa for such lighting to be installed but no one replied.”

Such facts corroborated Laferla’s version. The Court of Appeal hence quoted Article 1033 of the Civil Code. There existed, in this Court’s opinion, a causal connection between such deficiencies on the road in question and the accident. Both the Director of Roads and Enemalta were liable due to their relative omissions in securing safety.

The Court also considered the speed at which the driver was driving. The Court cited the case Froom v. Butcher quoted in The Modern Law of Negligence, R.A. Buckley, Butterworths (1993) where Lord Denning made a distinction between negligence and contributory negligence: “Negligence is a man’s carelessness in breach of duty to others. Contributory negligence is a man’s carelessness in looking after his own safety. He is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable prudent man, he might hurt himself.”

The Court of Appeal stated that the question as to whether a driver was prudent or not had to be examined in each case according to the circumstances. The Court felt that the evidence failed to highlight the speed as a determining factor although it did contribute to the accident to an extent.

For these reasons, the Court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgement of the First Hall, Civil Court.