This was an appeal of a judgement delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court in May, 2005. This case concerned an accident which occurred in November 2002, involving a collision between a crane – owned by the defendant, and a bus – owned by the plaintiff company, while being manoeuvred. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant was completely liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff company, since the bus was damaged extensively, so much so that it could not be used anymore, leading to a loss of income and consequential damages.

After taking into consideration all the evidence produced, the Civil Court decided in favour of plaintiff’s company, stating that the defendant was liable for the damage incurred by the plaintiff company as a result of the accident. The Court condemned the defendant to pay plaintiff company the sum of Lm11,127.70c.

The parties of the case basically did not agree on who had caused the accident. The Court examined the statements made by the involved persons to the police:

“Driver of bus route No …stated that as he was proceeding along Borg Olivier Street, going in the direction of Balluta, due to works projects and heavy machinery parked thereat, stopped for the oncoming vehicles, when suddenly the driver of crane no… swerved to the side and hit the roof of the bus”

“The driver of the crane stated that he was lifting down heavy machinery to the beach and not maneuvering the crane, when at the time the bus driver collided into the counterweight.”

The court stated that in cases such as the one under examination, one must study “what is in plain view.” It stated that it had to take into consideration the fact that a number of buses had passed by the place where the incident occurred that day and managed to pass the crane without colliding with it. However, the court, taking into account the manner in which the bus was damaged, and the testimony of the witness who was a passenger on the bus in question, ultimately gave more credibility to the plaintiff’s version of the incident and ruled in his favour, condemning the defendant to pay the stipulated amount of damages as liquidated by the same Court, including all the legal fees incurred.

The defendant company appealed the judgement, stating that the First Hall Civil Court had erred in its appreciation of the facts of the incident and in the quantification of damages.

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the way the First Hall Civil Court apportioned liability. The latter court found the person manoeuvring the crane (the defendant) wholly liable for the accident. The Court of Appeal stated that a prudent driver passing next to a crane – who knows, or could reasonably know that the same crane was being used as was the case in the scenario discussed, should drive past the same crane being sure that, should the crane move, the vehicle will not be hit.

Moreover, a bus driver should exercise a higher level of caution, considering his responsibility for his passengers. Hence, the Court of Appeal stated that the bus driver should have only driven past the crane if he was certain that even if a part of the crane moved – a likely possibility when cranes are in use – his vehicle would not be hit. The Court emphasised that the bus driver had an obligation to examine the situation and carefully make such a decision.

The Court further noted that the photographs, as well as police reports produced as evidence, revealed that the bus driver could have been more careful and did not use up all the space available on the road. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal decided that both parties were equally liable for the accident.

The Court of Appeal revoked the First Hall judgement to the extent that the Defendant was found solely liable for the incident. The Court also overturned the judgement in relation to liability, finding both parties equally liable.

The Court of Appeal, confirmed the quantification of damages as being Lm11,127.70c, however it revoked the First Hall’s order aimed at the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff this sum. Instead, the Court of Appeal divided the damages equally between the parties and condemned the defendant to pay the sum of Lm5,563.85 instead. Finally, the Court ordered that the legal expenses be equally divided.