Court rules heirs` suit for damages is time-barred

An action for damages following a fatal accident in 1982 was found to be time-barred by Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The court examined the writ of summons filed in 1995 by Maria Agius and by Graziella, Elton, Joanne and Nicholas Agius, being the widow and children of the late Carmelo Agius.

They claimed that the Police Commissioner, the director of the public works department, the controller of ports and the Malta Maritime Authority were liable in damages following Agius`s death.

They claimed that Agius, who in 1982 was 35 years old, had drowned after his car plunged into the sea from a ramp in the vicinity of the Regatta Club, in Cospicua. They said the ramp was not clearly marked so as to indicate danger and, therefore, the authorities in question were liable for Agius`s death.

The widow and children requested the court to condemn the authorities to make good the damages they had sustained.

The authorities submitted in their written pleas that the action against them had been barred by lapse of time on the grounds that the time limit for filing an action for damages resulting from a criminal offence was the same as the period established by law for the taking of the criminal action.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo ruled that in terms of law when death was caused as a result of negligence, carelessness or lack of skill, the time limit for filing criminal action was of five years. The applicable time limit for the filing of civil action for damages was therefore also of five years.

The widow and the children submitted that the time limit had been suspended as no criminal prescriptive periods ran when the perpetrator of a crime was unknown. However, this argument was dismissed by the court which found that they had identified the persons against whom they had filed their civil suit and that these persons had been known since the date of Agius`s death.

The court also dismissed their submission that prescriptive periods did not run against minors. While it was correct that Agius`s children had been minors at the time of his death, the law specifically provided that the time limit for the filing of such action could not be suspended just because those taking legal action were minors.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo concluded by declaring that the civil suit filed by the heirs of the late Agius was barred by lapse of time. The action was therefore dismissed.