Court finds speed boat owner partly responsible for swimmer's death
A judgement which had found a man 50 per cent responsible for the death of a swimmer in Sliema back in 1992 was this morning confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The criminal court of appeal confirmed the judgement, handed down by the first hall of the civil court in February 2008, which found Stephen Satariano 50 per cent responsible for the death of swimmer Pasquale Muscariello at Ferro Bay in Sliema.
Mr Muscariello was also responsible for his death because he had been diving without giving any indication.
Mr Satariano was ordered to pay €149,964 in damages.
In their judgement, Mr Justice Vincent de Gaetano, Mr Justice Joseph Filletti and Mr Justice Geoffrey Valencia, agreed with the first court the Mr Satariano had been closer to the bay than permitted by law, creating a danger for swimmers.
He was negligent in the use of his speedboat and as a consequence he hit Mr Muscariello and was partly responsible for his death.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Ruggier
May 29th 2010, 02:58
Partly responsible ?
J Galea
May 28th 2010, 22:22
What on earth explains 18 years to clear up this matter? Justice delayed is justice denied.
J. Borg
May 28th 2010, 20:41
I think the judgement is flawed.... The court reconfirmed that the boat was (in effect) within an area were boats are not allowed.... No if boats are barred from this distance from the shore, WHY should the victim or I for that matter, be required to carry a float indicating that a diver is beneath the water (within sea zones dedicated to swimmers only)?
M. J. Mallia
May 28th 2010, 21:29
The judgement may or may not be flawed. The biggest penalty, however, is having the death of a man on one's conscience for life - assuming that one has got a conscience, that is.
Joseph Calleja
May 28th 2010, 18:17
I think that this should be a warning to the weekend worriers who go showing off on their marine toys, this includes wave runners and jet skis. There are limits to how close to shore a boatsman can cruise. We need more patrols watching over our beaches especially on the weekends. Places like Ghadira Bay and similar crowded beaches should have a seven day watch looking for illegal boating. Please stay out of swimming areas.
Tom Spiteri
May 28th 2010, 17:21
18 years actually.But wow. Swift justice or what! And it only took 2 days to sentance Mr Facebook comments.
Ramon Casha
May 29th 2010, 05:25
It took 16 years for the sentence to be given, and then a further 2 years for the appeal.
Klaus Pederse
May 28th 2010, 16:21
16 years on !!!