Court upholds damages ruling against Enemalta
The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in terms of which Enemalta Corporation was ordered to pay over Lm20,000 in damages to A Montebello Tyres Ltd. The court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent...
The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in terms of which Enemalta Corporation was ordered to pay over Lm20,000 in damages to A Montebello Tyres Ltd.
The court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J Magri, heard that the company had, in its writ filed against the corporation in 1991, claimed that it had sustained damages as a result of a short circuit caused by the corporation's negligence.
The company had premises in Zejtun where it stored a large number of tyres. The electrical supply to the premises was provided by Enemalta and the corporation was supposed to continually maintain the electrical supply.
However, according to plaintiff company, the corporation had failed to do this and as a result there was a short circuit that had set fire to the premises.
In December 1986 the premises in Zejtun were completely destroyed by fire. In its judgment the First Hall of the Civil Court had found in favour of A Montebello and had ordered Enemalta to pay it Lm24,007.30 by way of damages after it concluded that the fire had been caused by a short circuit in the cable that led from the service box to the outside supply. Enemalta appealed.
The appellate court noted that Enemalta had based its appeal on the fact that in terms of law, it was not liable for any damage to person or property which might be due to unavoidable accident or to fair wear and tear.
The court-appointed experts had clearly established that a short circuit was the cause of the fire. Once this was the case, it was up to the corporation to prove that the fire and consequent damages were the result of unavoidable accident or fair wear and tear, the court held.
If the corporation produced such evidence, then it would be exonerated from liability. Once the corporation had not produced any such evidence the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.