An elderly driver accused of accidentally killing his wife while reversing his van in Buskett seven years ago was conditionally discharged on appeal since the victim had evidently contributed to the “truly unfortunate incident”.

The now-78-year-old widower, whose name was subject to a publication ban, was spared the €2,000 fine inflicted as punishment by the first court, which had concluded that when reversing his Toyota van he had done so at excessive speed.

That risky manoeuvre cost the life of his elderly wife who was meant to be assisting him by looking out for oncoming traffic while he reversed the vehicle out of a parking space under some trees onto Triq l-Imnarja in the limits of Dingli.

That August 4 afternoon at around 4.45 pm, husband and wife were heading to their fields when the fatal accident occurred.

The road outside the couple’s home was busier than usual because traffic was being diverted through it on account of road closures in the vicinity.

So, while manoeuvring his van with its high tailgate onto the road, the defendant asked his wife to keep a lookout for oncoming traffic.

That was when calamity struck.

The defendant later told a court expert that he suddenly heard a noise and, when he stepped out of the van, saw his wife lying on the ground.

She was rushed to hospital by ambulance where she succumbed to her injuries two hours later.

Victim suffered ‘multiple injuries’

A forensic pathologist confirmed that she suffered “multiple injuries following blunt trauma” and “contusion of the lungs”.

The driver was found guilty of involuntary homicide and was fined €2,000 by the magistrates’ court which took note of his age and frail health as well as the unfortunate circumstances of the accident.

Upon appeal, the defendant’s lawyers argued that the first court had wrongly assessed the evidence and also requested a reconsideration of the punishment.

When delivering judgment, the court of criminal appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras, confirmed that the position of the victim at the time of impact was never proved.

She was rushed to hospital before court experts got to the scene of the accident.

Knew that his wife was ‘somewhere’ behind van

However, the defendant’s own statement showed that he knew that his wife was “somewhere” behind the van, even though the high tailgate blocked his rearview and he could not see her through the side mirrors.

That was why he should have kept a proper lookout.

He obeyed the Highway Code by seeking someone’s assistance while reversing his van but failed to pay attention to make sure that there were no obstacles or persons behind the vehicle, in this case, his own wife.

This was not a “sudden emergency”, such as when a pedestrian suddenly steps onto the path of traffic.

In this case, the appellant knew that his wife was keeping a lookout for oncoming traffic because he had asked her to.

While confirming the driver’s negligence, the court, however, did not agree with the magistrate’s decision that the defendant had been driving “at a certain velocity” when attempting the risky manoeuvre.

‘Truly an unfortunate incident that could have been avoided’

Nowhere did the case records prove that he had been driving at excessive speed.

On the contrary, the court-appointed traffic expert had confirmed the total absence of tyre marks or other scratches on the road surface.

Moreover, the expert had explained that the distance covered when reversing was short and the surface was rough.

When all was considered, the court concluded that the appellant was not careful and did not check his surroundings, thus knocking down his wife who suffered fractured ribs and injuries to her right shoulder.

“This was truly an unfortunate incident which was foreseeable and could have been avoided although it was not foreseen by the appellant,” observed the judge.

However, although the first court could legally and reasonably find the defendant guilty, the court of appeal observed that there was a “strong [degree] of contributory negligence by the victim”.

She stood right behind the van although she knew that her husband was about to reverse. She could easily have looked out for traffic by standing to the side, observed Madam Justice Galea Sciberras.

Contrary to the first court’s conclusion, “it was clearly evident” that the victim contributed to the accident that cost her life.

Such contributory negligence was to be reflected in the punishment which, though within legal parameters, left room for variation.

Whilst declaring the appellant guilty of involuntary homicide, the court cancelled the €2,000 fine and conditionally discharged him for one year.

The court confirmed the three-month driving ban and payment of court expenses amounting to €1,183.70.

His remorse over the death of his wife was “sufficient punishment which [the appellant] would bear for life and which was doubtlessly greater than any punishment that could be inflicted by a court,” said the judge.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Silvio Brincat and Marion Camilleri were defence counsel.