Road accident damages judgment confirmed

The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court which ordered Enemalta Corporation to pay damages following a traffic accident caused by roadworks.

The case started in 1991 when Michael Balzan had sued the corporation. Philip Agius & Sons Ltd was later called into the suit.

Mr Balzan claimed that in March 1990 he had lost control of his car while driving along the Hamrun bypass at Sta Venera. He said the accident had occurred because of works being carried out by the corporation.

Mr Balzan's car had crossed over the centre strip and collided with a Landrover on the opposite lane.

According to Mr Balzan, the accident happened because the corporation had not taken due precautions when carrying out the works and that as a result Enemalta was to make good the damages he had sustained. Enemalta pleaded that it was not responsible for the accident, and that the works complained of were not carried out by it but by the contractor which was then called into the suit.

The contractor, Philip Agius & Sons Ltd pleaded that the writ was time-barred in its regard.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld the plea filed by the contractor and declared that Mr Balzan's action, insofar as it was addressed against the contractor, was time-barred.

The court however dismissed all Enemalta's pleas and concluded that the corporation was responsible for the accident. Mr Balzan was awarded damages amounting to Lm16,573.

Enemalta appealed and the Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti, heard the case.

The corporation claimed that the first court had not made a proper appreciation of the evidence produced, and that it ought to have concluded that Mr Balzan was responsible for the accident as he had driven in a negligent manner and at excessive speed and had failed to keep a proper look-out.

It insisted that the road was sufficiently lit and that the works in progress were adequately sign-posted.

The Court of Appeal declared that, as a rule, it did not overturn the appreciation of facts made by the first court unless for serious reasons.

It was true that every driver was bound to keep a proper lookout, but it was also a principle that a driver had every right to presume that the road along which he was driving was to continue in the same state all the way. If this were not the case, then there had to be adequate signs warning of ongoing works.

In this case it resulted that the part of the road where the collision occurred was straight but that there was a curve in the road some distance away. After the curve there was only a distance of 50 feet before the roadworks started.

The evidence produced showed that the sign indicating works in progress warned motorists of works 50 metres away, but it was clear that the sign was closer than 50 metres from such works.

Furthermore, there were no warning lights showing that there were works in progress.

The court heard that the roadworks were of a very extensive nature and that one of the road's carriage ways was totally obstructed. The signs that were posted were inadequate, and this was the cause of the accident.

Enemalta, the court said, had commissioned people to carry out these works but they had failed to take basic and elementary precautions for road safety.

In the circumstances Enemalta could not disclaim responsibility for the accident.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the first court but reduced the damages payable to Mr Balzan by Enemalta to Lm14,535.