Crane owner, operator both liable for damages caused by its collapse, says court

The court of appeal has upheld an arbiter's decision to hold a crane owner and operator responsible for the destruction it caused when it toppled over, also ordering them to pay double costs for the frivolous appeal.

The case relates to an incident in May 2009 at Bulebel industrial estate in which a car belonging to Emanuel Gauci was damaged by a falling crane, which was being operated by Kevin Bartolo.

The crane had been removing a large tank from a factory when it overturned, coming to rest on two parked cars, one of which was Gauci's.

Gauci's insurers, Untours Insurance Agency, filed proceedings against Victor Micallef, in whose name the crane was registered. Micallef had denied all responsibility for the accident, as he had lent it to Roc-A-Go Crane Services Ltd, who had been operating it at the time.

In the original decision, the arbiter had held that Micallef bore responsibility for the operation of crane as it was registered in his name, however Micallef had then filed an appeal, arguing that the arbiter had been mistaken. Micallef was at home at the time of the accident, he had argued, besides pointing out that the crane had been on loan to Roc-A-Go, whose employees had been operating it, at the time.

Furthermore, argued the appellants, nobody had witnessed the incident taking place and it had been the Health and Safety Authority that had concluded that an outrigger leg had not been properly deployed.

But Mr. Justice Anthony Ellul, presiding over the court of appeal, held that there was “nothing censurable in the conclsuion reached by the arbiter” as one of the outriggers had not been extended properly and had merely been resting on the ground at the time of the accident.

“Logic dictates that the incident occurred because the outriggers had not been properly assembled,” said the court, also citing the Health and Safety report, which concluded that the crane had toppled over on the side where this outrigger was not extended.

Additionally, said the court, there was nothing to indicate that the incident could have been attributable to force majeur, as had also been alleged.

Micallef had told police at the scene that he had transferred the registered ownership of the crane to the company, but no documentary evidence of this had been exhibited.

The court cited a previous judgement of the court of appeal, Emanuel Zammit noe vs Charles Polidano proprio et, in which it had been held that a company could not shirk its responsibility by saying that it had appointed a person to take care of the work.

It was evident that the person he had appointed was not skilled at operating a crane, said the court, which led to him being liable for entrusting the task to him.

Bartolo had denied being at the controls of the crane before the arbiter but the court noted that this contradicted what he had told police in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

The court confirmed the original award of €4,146.28 to the insurer and €81.52 to Gauci as well as condemning the appellants to pay double costs as the court adjudged the appeal to be friviolous.