A husband whose wife suffered serious burns when he unwittingly triggered a chemical explosion on their boat has been cleared of all criminal liability. 

The couple in their mid-thirties, were preparing their boat for its annual launch, inside a Marsascala garage, when the incident occurred back in August 2015. 

While his wife stacked a picnic cooler in the vessel, the man siphoned petrol from a container into the outboard motor of the vessel.

When he turned the ignition switch, an explosion occurred and flames spread throughout the lower parts of the boat, badly burning his wife on board. 

A passer-by rushed to help as he heard the explosion and the woman’s cries.

The woman was later treated for burns to her limbs and her husband was prosecuted for caused her grievous injuries through his alleged negligence. 

A chemical expert, appointed to assess the cause of the explosion, explained how petrol vapour had accumulated inside the garage while the accused was siphoning fuel into the boat’s motor.

Petrol concentration exceeding 1 per cent was potentially explosive and could burn violently in the presence of a spark, as had happened in this case, when the husband switched on the motor.

This was no more than an “unfortunate incident” which might have been avoided had the man lowered the siphon deeper into the tank to avoid petrol vapour buildup, the expert said.

In the light of the expert’s explanation, the court, presided over by magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo, observed that a man of reasonable care could hardly know about such danger, which required a degree of scientific knowledge. 

Indeed, the accused had performed the operation on previous occasions and had caused no fuel spills. 

The smell of petrol did not alarm the man and the court, in fact, observed that petrol vapour was a common occurrence at service stations. 

Moreover, the explosion was not caused by an open flame but an electric spark, invisible to the naked eye, the court went on.

The prosecution had failed to prove negligence, said the court, concluding that this accident was not foreseeable and much less intentional. 

Lawyer David Gatt was defence counsel.