Article 1031 of the Maltese Civil Code establishes the general principle that individuals are responsible for damages resulting from their own fault.

The mentioned Article 1031 states the following:

‘Every  person,  however,  shall  be  liable  for  the  damage which occurs through his fault’

Meanwhile Article 1033 of the Civil Code provides:

‘Any person who, with or without intent to injure, voluntarily or through negligence, imprudence, or want of attention, is guilty of any act or omission constituting a breach of the duty imposed by law, shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom’

To successfully pursue a tort claim, four elements must therefore be met: the act must be attributable to a person, it must be unjust, it must have caused damage, and it must involve either “dolus” (intentional misconduct), “culpa” (negligence or fault arising from a lack of reasonable care or diligence) or violations of legal duties.

An important question arises concerning the liability of the state, particularly in cases where it fails in its duties, such as the obligation of local councils to maintain roads in good repair as prescribed by the Local Government Act.

For certain, the notion that the state could not be sued under the concept of iure imperii as held in the 1984 case of Busuttil vs La Primaudaye[1] has long been abandoned.

Therefore, while Article 1031 refers to “person,” the government can also be held accountable for damages caused by its own fault to the injured party. Consequently, if the government acts imprudently, negligently, or fails to fulfil its legal obligations with the expected level of diligence and care, it can be subject to liability.

This principle was exemplified in a recent court case involving a cyclist whose front tire got stuck in a rainwater catchment grille, resulting in injury. In this specific case, the judge conducted a thorough evaluation of the presented evidence and definitively established a direct link between the plaintiff’s disability and the council’s negligence in properly maintaining the road where the accident occurred. As a result, the judge awarded the plaintiff a substantial sum of approximately €52,000.

The harm suffered by the cyclist was deemed a direct and immediate consequence of the council’s inaction in properly maintaining the rainwater catchment grille, which led to the accident and subsequent injury.

[1] Paolo Busuttil vs Clement La Primaudaye noe et, (Kollezzjoni ta’ Decizjonijiet tal-Qrati Superjuri ta’ Malta, Volum XIV B (1894)).