The court found a driver was fully liable for a fatal accident because she failed to maintain a proper lookout and proper control of her vehicle, rejecting the argument of contributory negligence by the victim.
In her judgement delivered on 27 March 2026, Judge Audrey Demicoli said although the victim lacked a licence and high-visibility vest, while riding a horse-drawn cart, these factors did not contribute to the accident. The court also confirmed that direct action against insurers may be brought together with the action against the insured driver and that insurance agents may be legitimate contradictors. Damages were awarded to the heirs of the deceased.
The case concerned a fatal traffic accident that occurred on 11 March 2022 in Triq Ħad-Dingli, Rabat, which resulted in the death of the person driving the horse-drawn cart. The cart was being driven along the side of the road when a car collided into it, overturning it and causing fatal injuries. The plaintiffs in this case were the heirs of the victim who filed a civil action requesting a declaration that the defendant was responsible for the accident and death, liquidation and payment of damages and the driver and insurers be held liable jointly.
The court first addressed two preliminary pleas concerning whether the defendant had a juridical interest in the case and the procedural admissibility of a direct action against the insurer together with the action ex delicto against the insured driver.
The court rejected the first plea and held that the insurance agent, was a legitimate contradictor since it was materially involved in the issuance of the insurance policy and therefore formed part of the juridical relationship from which the dispute arose. This emerges from the Insurance Distribution Act.
With regard to the second plea, the court held that there is no legal impediment to bringing a direct action against the insurer together with the action against the insured driver in the same proceedings, particularly where the court is required to determine liability and liquidate damages which would ultimately be payable by the insurer under the policy.
The central issue before the court was whether the defendant was civilly liable for the accident that caused the death and whether the accident resulted from her negligence or from contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
The court held that the defendant driver was fully liable for the accident on the basis of negligent driving. The court emphasised the duty of drivers to always maintain a proper lookout and proper control of the vehicle. From the CCTV footage, it was evident that the defendant had sufficient time to notice the horse-drawn cart after the vehicle in front of her overtook it, yet she failed to reduce speed or manoeuvre safely. The court concluded that the accident resulted from her failure to exercise the degree of prudence expected of a reasonable driver and therefore she was solely responsible for the collision and the resulting death.
A particularly important aspect of the judgement concerned contributory negligence. The defendant argued that the deceased contributed to the accident because he lacked the necessary licence to drive the cart, was not wearing a high-visibility vest, and was driving a horse-drawn vehicle on a road used by motor vehicles. However, the court reiterated the established principle that not every breach of traffic regulations amounts to contributory negligence. This was outlined in the judgement Carmelo sive Charles Micallef St John et vs Richard Spiteri et decided by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2002, and in Joseph Grech vs Emanuel Grech decided by the Magistrates Court in Gozo on 4 May 2023.
The court emphasised that the determining factor was whether the conduct of the injured party contributed causally to the accident. Since the cart was being driven at the side of the road, in daylight, and the accident occurred due to the defendant’s failure to maintain a proper lookout while overtaking, the court held that the deceased’s regulatory breaches were not causally linked to the accident. Consequently, no contributory negligence was established.
After determining liability, the court proceeded to liquidate damages in terms of Article 1045 of the Civil Code, distinguishing between damnum emergens and lucrum cessans. The court awarded compensation for funeral and related expenses as actual loss suffered, and proceeded to calculate the loss of future earnings of the deceased on the basis of his income, life expectancy and the financial dependency of the heirs. The judgement reflected the established approach of Maltese courts in fatal accident cases, where the court estimates future loss of earnings and dependency rather than applying a purely mathematical formula, exercising judicial discretion to arrive at a fair compensatory amount.
The court ultimately held the defendant driver fully liable for the accident on the basis of negligent driving. The court rejected the defence of contributory negligence, holding that although the deceased may have been in breach of certain traffic regulations, these breaches were not causally linked to the accident and therefore did not reduce liability.
The judgement also clarified procedural issues relating to legitimate contradictors and confirmed that a direct action against an insurer may be brought together with the action against the insured driver. The case therefore reinforced the principle that civil liability in traffic accidents depends primarily on the proximate cause of the accident rather than mere regulatory breaches.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
