As the number of vehicles on the roads continues to grow, accidents have unfortunately become a norm, with the parties often finding themselves in litigious proceedings claiming compensation for damages.

Article 1032(1) of the Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta, provides that “a person shall be deemed to be at fault if, in his own acts, he does not use the prudence, diligence, and attention of a bonus paterfamilias.”

This fundamental provision, well entrenched in our legal system, has formed the grounds for countless actions for damages.

A judgment pronounced by the First Hall of the Civil Court on March 25 delved into one such claim.

The parties presented the court with two versions of events.

On the one hand, the plaintiff testified that he was driving his motorcycle towards Żejtun. When he reached the Għaxaq bypass, traffic was coming from both sides. He was driving at a distance of about one and a half vehicles from the vehicle in front of him, in a position that he described as being "in the middle of the vehicle but closer to the right and closer to the central strip so that the vehicles in my lane could see me and so I could see clearly what was happening on the road.”

Plaintiff added that as he reached the defendant's car, she suddenly picked up speed and drove out of the side road straight to the right on the main road, crossing to the opposite lane that takes the traffic towards Gudja. He tried to stop his motorbike to avoid the collision but kept going into the side of the defendant's car which dragged him with her. He consequentially fell off his motorcycle and sustained both actual and future damages.

On the other hand, the defendant testified that on the day of the accident, there was traffic on the Għaxaq by-pass. The traffic that was moving in the direction of Żejtun was gathering at the Bir id-Deheb roundabout, so much so that traffic had even reached the service road. The traffic on the opposite lane (direction Gudja) was flowing. Defendant explained how she wanted to head towards Gudja, so she switched on her indicator accordingly. There was no traffic sign that prohibited her from crossing the main road to go on the opposite lane.

Since the traffic towards Żejtun was at a standstill, one of the vehicles in the standstill traffic gave way for her to cross and hence, after looking both ways, she started her manoeuvre to go out to the opposite lane.

She had almost crossed the entire lane when she heard a bang at the back of her car, on the right side and saw plaintiff’s motorcycle. She emphasised that the motorcycle driven by the plaintiff was coming from the outer part of the traffic and overtaking the vehicles in that lane. That was why she did not see him.

The court started off by considering article 1032 of Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta emphasising prudence, diligence and the attention of a bonus paterfamilias. The court also made explicit reference to a Court of Appeal judgment in the names of Mag. A. Stagno Navarra vs N. Saliba in order to emphasise that the main road user must be attentive but the degree of diligence required by him is considered to be much less than that of the side road user because the latter is not disturbing the course of traffic.

Yet, after carefully considering the contrasting accounts made by the parties, the court upheld the defendant’s version of events.

The court observed that according to plaintiff, the defendant came out of the side road when he was less than two meters away. The court considered that this version was not deserving of any plausibility because it was incomprehensible that defendant practically ran over plaintiff when he was so close to her.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the sketch produced by the police. It was evident from the sketch that the defendant's vehicle had almost completely crossed the plaintiff's lane. If the defendant really left the side road when the plaintiff was less than two meters away from her, the impact of the motorcycle with the vehicle driven by the defendant would not have been on its side, but on the front part.

The court considered that it was more likely that the defendant left the side road after another vehicle let her through. Once the vehicle in front of the plaintiff stopped for the defendant to pass, the plaintiff either overtook the vehicle which was at a halt or otherwise was driving parallel to the traffic in his lane.

Taking into account the facts at hand, the court considered that the duty incumbent on a driver on the main road was accentuated when the driver approached a crossroads.

The court declared that when the plaintiff was approaching the intersection with a secondary road, he had a duty to exercise greater prudence and diligence. The manoeuvre used at that moment by the plaintiff was dangerous since his visibility of the road was constrained due to the vehicles next or in front of him.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument to the police that he had thought that the defendant was going to stop and let him pass along the main road.

The court therefore concluded that plaintiff himself was responsible for the accident, having failed to employ that measure of prudence and diligence that was expected of him in the circumstances.

The judgment may be subject to appeal.

Dr Analise Magri is a junior associate at Azzopardi Borg and Associates, Advocates.