Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544245
THE court found a driver was fully liable for a fatal accident because she failed to maintain a proper lookout and proper con- trol of her vehicle, rejecting the argument of contributory negli- gence by the victim. In her judgment 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 fac- tors did not contribute to the accident. The court also con- firmed that direct action against insurers may be brought togeth- er with the action against the insured driver and that insur- ance agents may be legitimate contradictors. Damages were awarded to the heirs of the de- ceased. The case concerned a fatal traf- fic accident that occurred on 11 March 2022 in Triq Ħad-Ding- li, 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 in- to 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, liquida- tion 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 de- licto against the insured driver. The court rejected the first plea and held that the insurance agent, was a legitimate contra- dictor since it was materially involved in the issuance of the insurance policy and therefore formed part of the juridical rela- tionship 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 bring- ing 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 ultimate- ly be payable by the insurer un- der the policy. The central issue before the court was whether the defend- ant was civilly liable for the ac- cident 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 de- fendant driver was fully liable for the accident on the basis of negligent driving. The court emphasised the duty of driv- ers to always maintain a prop- er 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 re- duce speed or manoeuvre safe- ly. The court concluded that the accident resulted from her failure to exercise the degree of prudence expected of a reasona- ble driver and therefore she was solely responsible for the colli- sion and the resulting death. A particularly important as- pect of the judgment concerned contributory negligence. The defendant argued that the de- ceased contributed to the acci- dent because he lacked the nec- essary 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 judgment Carmelo sive Charles Micallef St John et vs Richard Spiteri et de- cided by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2002, and in Joseph Grech vs Emanuel Grech decid- ed 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 ac- cident. Since the cart was being driven at the side of the road, in daylight, and the accident oc- curred 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 liqui- date damages in terms of Arti- cle 1045 of the Civil Code, dis- tinguishing between damnum emergens and lucrum cessans. The court awarded compensa- tion for funeral and related ex- penses as actual loss suffered, and proceeded to calculate the loss of future earnings of the deceased on the basis of his in- come, life expectancy and the financial dependency of the heirs. The judgment reflect- ed the established approach of Maltese courts in fatal accident cases, where the court estimates future loss of earnings and de- pendency 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 contrib- utory negligence, holding that although the deceased may have been in breach of certain traf- fic regulations, these breaches were not causally linked to the accident and therefore did not reduce liability. The judgment also clarified procedural issues relating to legitimate contradictors and confirmed that a direct ac- tion against an insurer may be brought together with the ac- tion against the insured driver. The case therefore reinforced the principle that civil liability in traffic accidents depends pri- marily on the proximate cause of the accident rather than mere regulatory breaches. 12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 APRIL 2026 LAW Not every breach of traffic regulations amounts to contributory negligence MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates 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