Cause and effect must be connected in damages cases

When the court is determining whether a defendant is responsible for damages, it must establish a direct connection between cause and effect. This was held in Karl Busuttil et vs Matthew Schembri in the judgment delivered by Magistrate Victor Axiak on 7 July 2025.

The applicants asked the court to order the defendant, Matthew Schembri, to pay €10,620 for damages incurred when rainwater entered their home. Although the defendant admitted to causing some of the indicated damages—not all—he insisted the sum was not what the applicants were claiming.

Karl Busuttil explained in his testimony that in November 2021, rainwater had entered his kitchen and other parts of the house. The water was coming from the defendant’s property. When visiting the property, the defendant said that he was to inform his insurance company. Busuttil said the defendant had admitted responsibility for the water ingress. However, the insurance company informed the defendant that he was not covered by the insurance policy.

The applicant told the court that his architect and carpenter were of the opinion that the kitchen could not be fixed but had to be changed. The quotation for a change of the kitchen amounted to €10,984. The parties had a meeting and according to the applicant, the defendant agreed to pay in full. However, after he was informed that the insurance policy did not cover this incident, the defendant offered to pay €1,400 because the kitchen was old and not worth €10,000.

The applicant’s architect presented his report to the court. He explained that water entered his client’s property and damaged the kitchen and walls because the defendant was still carrying out construction works in his property. His estimate of the damages was €9,000. Under cross-examination, the architect could not give a value of the kitchen before the incident. The applicant brought as his witnesses three carpenters who said that the kitchen should be changed.

The defendant testified that he did take the blame for the damage, however, the parties did not agree on the quantum of damages. He confirmed that although there was an insurance policy, it did not cover the damages because his property was still under construction. He insisted the damage to the cupboards did not warrant a brand-new kitchen.

Meanwhile, a court-appointed expert concluded the actual damages amounted to €3,000.

Magistrate Axiaq based his deliberations on the articles of the Civil Code which deal with damages. The law states that any person causing damage must be responsible for that damage. However, the law does not define negligence but refers to a lack of prudence, diligence and attention. In Mary Vassallo vs Giovanni Mizzi et decided on 9 April 1949, the court held that there is no distinction between negligence and damages caused by a wrongful act, but the difference may be seen in the cause and the level of damage.

Another judgment quoted by the court is Carmelo Farrugia et vs Victor Conti decided on 9 October 2003, which held that there should be a connection between cause and effect.

The court tackled the concept on bonus paterfamilias mentioned in Article 1031 of the Civil Code. The diligence which must be used when calculating whether there is any negligence is that of an ordinary man.

Coming to this case, the court pointed out the difference between the two reports presented by the applicant’s architect. The second report listed the damages found in the property of the applicant. Although the parties did agree that the kitchen sustained some damage but there was no agreement on the compensation that had to be paid. The court expert held that the applicant’s architect did not inspect the defendant’s property.  The architect had asserted that the bathroom and drains were complete, however, the court expert held that this was not the case. Therefore, the damages other than the kitchen were not the defendant’s responsibility. It is for this reason that the court expert set the damages at €3,000.

Although the court is not bound by its appointed expert’s conclusions it cannot ignore them lightly. The court held that there is nothing in the expert’s report that merits it to be ignored and moved to uphold the applicant’s claim but limited the damages to €3,000.