Health and safety legislation is intended to safeguard the rights not only of workers but also those of third parties who may be affected by the works being carried out.

This issue was clearly spelt out in a recent judgment delivered in criminal proceedings against Rudolph and Ramon Rossignaud, as co-owners of a development project, together with Alfred Farrugia, the contractor who had carried out works on said project.

The case revolved around an unfortunate incident back in March 2012, when the co-owners’ brother, Norman, had fallen down a flight of steps inside a newly constructed block of apartments in Sliema, which he, as another co-owner, had gone to inspect.

The man had allegedly plunged down the stairs when a temporary wooden guardrail had snapped as the victim held onto it, causing him to suffer grievous injuries which ultimately proved to be fatal.

Proceedings were instituted against the victim’s two brothers and contractor, for having, through negligence and non-observance of regulations, caused the victim grievous injuries which resulted in death.

Delving into the Parliamentary Debates surrounding amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act back in 2000, Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech observed that the intention of the legislator had clearly been to widen the scope of this law.

Those responsible for any building works are to ensure, while the works are in progress, the safety not only of workers but also of all persons who might somehow be affected by the works, the court declared, stressing that the law had purposely been amended to ensure the protection of third parties as was the victim in this case.

The victim’s wife, testifying in the proceedings, had recalled that fateful morning when, worried by her husband’s delay, she had gone to the apartment block where she had come across the man, standing upright, leaning against the opening of a lift shaft, his body ‘as though locked’ in a rigid position and gasping for breath.

The pieces of wood on the landing came from a temporary guardrail which was later certified as ‘flimsy’ by a court-appointed expert, who explained how the structure had been made out of strips of pallet wood, hammered into place.

Moreover, the handrail had been placed some 20 centimeters below the statutory minimum height.

After hearing all evidence, the court observed that the two Rossignaud brothers had been striving to complete the building project for some 20 years and that ‘senseless’ piques had stultified progress and had resulted in the victim paying ‘the highest price.’

Indeed, the two co-accused had taken all necessary measures to ensure that any dangers in the unfinished parts of the building, was reduced, entrusting an experienced stone mason with the task.

Yet although the latter had ‘failed seriously’ when he did not strictly abide by building regulations, the article of law under which criminal charges had been pressed, was only applicable when works were ongoing.

In this case, works had been completed a few days before the incident, the court observed, pronouncing an acquittal in respect of all three co-accused.

However, in a final message, the court urged relative authorities to consolidate all building regulations under one law which would be understandable to all those involved in this ever-growing economic sector.

‘Certainty of the law is a fundamental requisite for the Rule of Law’ the Court continued, further urging that revision courses for stone masons be a mandatory prerequisite for the renewal of their licence, thus making sure that these tradesmen are constantly up to scratch and fully aware of their legal obligations.