 |
|
Maltese
Legal Materials on Professional Liability
•
Professional Liability, LL.D. Thesis, 1986 - Stefan Meilak Books: • Professional Negligence by Jackson & Powell (Sweet & Maxwell, 1982) Laws: • Civil Code,
Chapter 16 Civil Code Sections: Contract: S.1132(1): Saving
any other provision of this Code relating to deposits, the degree of
diligence to be exercised in the performance of an obligation, whether
the object thereof is the benefit of only one of the parties, or of
both, is, in all cases, that of a bonus paterfamilias as provided in
section 1032. S. 1136: The debtor shall only be liable for such damages as were or could have been foreseen at the time of the agreement, unless non-performance of the obligation was due to fraud on his part. S.
1137: Even where the non-performance of the obligation is due to the
fraud on the part of the debtor, the compensation in respect of the
loss sustained by the creditor, and of the profit of which he was deprived,
shall only include such damages as are the immediate and direct consequence
of the non-performance. Mandate Section 1874(1): A mandatary is answerable not only for fraud, but also for negligence in carrying out the mandate
S. 1032(1): Every
person shall be deemed to be in fault if, in his own acts, he does not
use the prudence, diligence, and attention of a bonus paterfamilias. S. 1044 Where damage has been unjustly caused, any person who has wilfully contributed thereto with advice, threats or commands shall also be liable.
S. 1050(1): Where
the part of the damage which each has caused cannot be ascertained,
the injured party may claim that the whole damage be made good by any
one of the persons concerned, even though all or some of them acted
without malice, saving the right of the defendant to seek relief from
the other or the others. S. 12: Any agreement or other arrangement purporting to exempt an accountant or an auditor from any liability, responsibility or duty under this Act or under any other enactment, or to relieve him therefrom, or, except under a policy of insurance made out under section 11 of this Act, to indemnify him against any such liability or responsibility, shall be null and void. S. 14(1): A warrant
issued under any of the provisions of this Act may be suspended or revoked,
and the registration of a partnership under section 10 may be suspended
or cancelled, by the Minister, in accordance with the following provisions
of this section, if the person to whom such a warrant was issued or
the partnership or any of the partners of the partnership: (b) has been found
guilty by a court of law - S. 15(1): The provisions of this Act establishing offences and punishments in respect thereof shall not affect the operation of any other law establishing offences and punishments in respect of the same acts or omissions and shall not, in particular, affect the application of any higher punishment under any other law. Companies
Act S. 148(1): Any provision, whether contained in the memorandum or articles of a company or in any contract with a company or otherwise for exempting any officer of the company or any person engaged by the company as auditor from, or indemnifying him against, any liability which by virtue of any rule of law would in the absence thereof have been attached to him in respect of negligence, default or breach of duty or otherwise of which he may be guilty in relation to the company shall be void. S. 422 : A person
who, in responding to a requirement imposed under Section 418 of this
Act to provide an explanation or make a statement, knowingly or recklessly
provides or makes an explanation or statement which is false in a material
particular shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to
a fine (multa) of not more than twenty thousand liri or imprisonment
for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Nutar: 1.
Anthony Zammit et v. Notary Dr Joseph Tabone - Appell 13.10.97 Arkitett: 6.
Refalo v. Mercieca et - 14/5/93 Vol.LXXVII Part II p.159 Avukat: 19.
Testaferrata Abela v. Dr. Camilleri - 29/12/72 Professjonista: 25.
Agius Fernandez v. Dr. Buttigieg - Appell Civili 6/10/58 Vol. XLII p.436 Tabib: 31.
Borg v. Dr. Fiorini Prim'Awla 18/7/94 NUTAR
Plaintiffs entered into a promise of sale agreement by means of a private writing executed before defendant notary and paid Lm5,000 to the prospective seller on account of the price. It later resulted that the prospective seller was not the owner of the immovable which he promised to sell and had in fact he fled Malta. The Court of Appeal found that since the notary had no obligation to advise the plaintiff to make enquiries about the prospective seller before forwarding the money, he could not be found liable in damages. The Court referred to the case Mary Xuereb v. Nutar Emanuele Agius (No. 3). "ma jirrizultax li l-konvenut naqas mid-dmirijiet imposti fuqu mil-ligi notarili. Ghandu ghalhekk jigi ezaminat jekk il-konvenut jistax jinstab responsabbli ta' kolpa extrakontrattwali jew 'culpa Aquiliana' li hija regolata bil-Kodici Civili taht id-delitti jew kwazi-delitti. "l-agir
tal-konvenut ma jistax jinkwadra ruhu fil-kolpa Akwiljana jekk ma kellux
obligu li jaghmel xi haga biex l-attur jiddesisti milli jhallas il-flus
fuq il-konvenju……Anki jekk kellu jigi koncess li l-agir tal-konvenut
kien fattur li seta' naqqas ir-rezistenza u l-attenzjoni ta' l-attur,
dan l-agir ma jikkostitwix nuqqas bhala 'bonus paterfamilias' ghall-finijiet
tal-kolpa kontrattwali ghaliex biex jissussisti delitt jew kwazi-delitt
l-agir irid ikun fatt illecitu, jigifieri li jivvjola l-ligi. Mhux
bizzejjed li wiehed ma jaghmilx dak li hu desiderabbli biex jista' jigi
ritenut li naqas bhala 'bonus paterfamilias'.
The Court held the Notary liable in damages for failing to fulfill the obligation of verifying the identity of a person appearing on the public deed as a result of which plaintiff suffered damages. Failure to fulfill an express statutory formal requirement gives rise to liability, no proof of negligence being required. "L-inosservanza fil-prattika ta' l-obbligi imposti mil-ligi da parti ta' xi nutara ma tistax tiswa bhala skuzanti billi l-ligi ma titlef xejn mis-sahha taghha ghax hafna jiksruha jew ma jaghtux kaz taghha."
The Notary was held liable in damages for giving wrong advice as a result of 'gross negligence'. The notary failed to carry out searches and the remaining period of an emytheutical grant was shorter than that actually stated by the notary. The standard of care and diligence required of a professional is that of a bonus paterfamilias, in the absence of an express legislative provision relative thereto. "kull wiehed iwiegeb ghall-hsara li tigri bi htija tieghu; u 'jitqies fi htija kull min fl-ghemil tieghu ma juzax il-prudenza, id-diligenza u l-hsieb ta' missier tajjeb tal-familja'; u kull min…..minghajr hsieb li jaghmel deni….b'nuqqas ta' diligenza, ta' prudenza jew ta' hsieb…..jaghmel jew jonqos li jaghmel id-doveri mposti mil-ligi, huwa obbligat ghall-hsara li tigi minn hekk.' Liema principji jabbraccjaw l-attijiet ta' kommissjoni kif ukoll ta' ommissjoni. Il-limiti ta' responsabbilta huwa dak rikjest u li jitnissel mill-prudenza, diligenza u hsieb tal-bonus paterfamilias, u mhux akbar, fin-nuqqas ta' disposizzjoni espressa fil-ligi; "Illi d-dottrina u t-teorija ta' l-izkuzabilita ta' l-izbalji ("errori") professjonali ma holqitx speci ohra ta' htija oltre dawk rikonoxxuti mil-ligi komuni; imma minhabba d-diffikultajiet li jirrikorru dwar it-tfittxija tal-htija fl-izbalji li jaqghu umanament fihom l-ezercenti ta' l-artijiet liberali, u cioe il-professjonisti, stabiliet kriterju prattiku; l-ghaliex mentri mill-banda wahda mhux gust u mhux anqas ragjonevoli li jkun ritenut li l-professjonista ghandu jkun dejjem ritenut assolutament responsabbli, mill-banda l-ohra huwa per lo meno altrettantu assurd u incivili li jigi sostnut li hu qatt ma ghandu jigi ritenut responsabbli, tkun kemm tkun gravi u kbira l-imperizja, l-imprudenza, l-inkurja u l-leggerezza, li mill-provi tigi addimostrata li huwa jkun adopera fl-ezercizzju professjonali tieghu fil-kaz in konkret; "Illi kien ghalhekk li gie fil-prattika mid-dottrina suggerit li l-att tal-professjonista li jkollu l-effett dannus, irid jigi ezaminat intrinsikament fl-isfond tax-xjenza jew arti ta' min jikkommettieh jew jintrapprendieh. Infatti din il-Qorti ma tahsibx li jista' jigi dubitat li l-professjonista li jittraskura l-formalitajiet indispensabbli u perentorji u juri negligenzi ohra fl-ezercizzju tal-professjoni, jew jirrevela injoranza li mhix perdonabbli u lanqas ma tista' tigi immaginata fih, fil-kwalita tieghu, huwa indubbjament, anki skond il-ligi komuni, ikun tenut ghall-attijiet tieghu; l-ghaliex dawk il-fatti jew atti, u ommissjonijiet, jistghu u huma b'vigilanza personali possibbli li jigu evitati; imma mill-banda l-ohra, jekk l-izball tieghu jkun dovut ghall-imperfezzjoni ta' l-istess xjenza jew arti minnu ezercitata, l-ghaliex fuq kwistjoni guridika huwa jabbraccja hsieb ta' skola anzikke ta' ohra, jew l-ghaliex il-Qorti ma tkunx taqbel mal-parir tieghu, jew l-ghaliex il-punt ta' dritt ikun dubbjuz jew kontrovers, certament l-istess ezercenti ma ghandux ikun ritenut responsabbli; l-ghaliex huwa, se mai, ikun ha zball, imma ma jigiex b'hekk li ma wzax id-diligenza li trid il-ligi. "Din il-Qorti, ghalhekk tirritjeni li r-responsabbilta tal-konvenut ghandha titqies in bazi tal-principji ormai pacifici in materia, u li ghandu jigi ritenut responsabbli jekk hemm mill-parti tieghu inkurja gravi, jew 'gross negligence'."
A Notary who undertakes a task and gives advice in relation thereto is responsible for damages in contract not in tort, therefore the two year prescriptive period does not apply. The Notary engaged by the plaintiff had given advice to the effect that the period of an emphytheutical grant is put down as 55 years 'cirka', and it later resulted that it was in fact for a 42-year period. "l-parir li ta l-konvenut kien konness u kellu rapport dirett ma' l-inkarigu li huwa kellu, u kwindi jekk kien in kolpa, din l-istess htija tieghu kienet kontrattwali ghaliex meta nkarigah l-attur, kif huwa stess ammetta, mill-ewwel qallu li l-utili dominju in vendita kien ghad baqaghlu 40 jew 43 sena biex jaghlaq, u huwa, li ma kienx ghamel ricerki ma kellu qatt jaghti dak il-parir, meta l-inkarigu tieghu kien esplicitu ghaz-zmien, u l-parir tieghu kien bazat fuq zmien kontemplat f'kuntratt iehor fejn huwa kien jaf li ma sarux ricerki; "Illi kwindi
l-eccezzjoni tal-preskrizzjoni bijennali, opposta mill-konvenut, ma
tistax tigi akkolta bil-favur, l-ghaliex mhix applikabbli ghall-kaz
in dizamina."
When the law contemplates a penalty for failure to fulfill a particular duty, the notary is not further liable in damages, unless the law expressly so provides. The Notary failed to publish a marriage contract wherein one of the parties was a trader. (* not to followed ) "fl-ewwel
artiklu l-legislatur qal espressament: 'the notary who contravenes against
this provision is responsible towards the party concerned for damages,
and is liable to an ammenda not exceeding five pounds sterling, to be
awarded by the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts 'ex officio' or on
demand of any person'; fit-tieni qal biss illi n-nutar kien passibbli
tal-penali, li tista' tkun mitluba mill-Avukat Irjali jew minghand kwalunkwe
interessat. Ghalhekk, meta l-legislatur ried izomm lin-nutar responsabbli
ghad-danni qalu espressament." ARKITETT
The standard of care and diligence required of an architect and other professionals is that of a bonus paterfamilias. The specific action for damages against the architect contemplated in the Civil Code requires proof that the building fell or is in manifest danger of falling owing to a defect in its construction or a defect in the ground. Defendants had been engaged by plaintiff to build a house. "l-periti perizjuri ma sabu l-eda xaqq ta' tort fuq in-naha tal-konvenuti fejn gew ghal kollox skolpati minn kwalunkwe tort ghad-difetti strutturali llum ezistenti fil-fond de quo u minn kull responsabbilta professjonali ghalihom. "f'azzjoni esperita fit-termini ta' dan l-artikolu hemm il-presuppost mhux ta' kwalunkwe lezjoni ghall-edifizzju jew difett ta' kostruzzjoni, imma r-rovina totali jew parzjali, jew almenu l-perikolu evidenti anki jekk mhux imminenti ta' rovina."
The architect was held liable in damages for failing to take the necessary precautions so that no harm is done in the course of the construction of a building. During the course of construction works on the property of one of the defendants and under the direction of the architect, a huge stone fell on the neighbouring building, causing considerable damage thereto. "Kull min
bil-hsieb jew minghajr hsieb li jaghmel deni, ghax ikun irid jew b'nuqqas
ta' diligenza, ta' prudenza jew ta' hsieb jaghmel jew jonqos li jaghmel
xi haga li biha jikser xi dmir impost mil-ligi hu obbligat ghall-hlas
tal-hsara li tigri minhabba f'hekk'…..Hawnhekk qeghdin nitrattaw
fuq culpa li giet definita kemm 'la volontaria ommissione della diligenza
nel calcolare le conseguenze possibili e prevedibili del proprio comportamento'
kif ukoll skond il-Chironi 'colpa val percio nel quasi delitto, ommissione
di diligenza, imprudenza nel calcolare le conseguenze ingiuriose prevedibili
del proprio fatto od ommissione commessa all'infuori di una relazione
d'obbligazione.'
The architect was held liable in damages for failure to adequately monitor the works being carried out under his direction. He had been engaged by plaintiff to build some houses. "Fost id-dmirijiet ta' l-arkitett dirigenti hu wisq importanti dak li jissorvelja adegwament ix-xoghol in kors."
The architect and the contractor are not responsible in solidum (i.e. joint and severally). Each has to answer for his own negligence. Defendant had undertaken a contract of works on property belonging to plaintiff. "Lanqas il-gurisprudenza taghna ma hi konkordi, billi hemm sentenzi li jaghmlu konfuzjoni bejn ir-responsabbilta tal-art.1074 u dik konvenzjonali tal-art.1732. Insibu kwindi sentenza li tghid li l-arkitett u l-appaltatur ghandhom jigu kondannati 'in solido' lejn id-danneggjat, jekk il-parti tad-dannu li kull wiehed minnhom ikun ikkaguna ma tkunx tista' tigi determinata. Insibu sentenza li, minghajr ma tghid espressament li r-responsabbilta taghhom hi solidali, ikkundannathom flimkien, salvi l-azzjonijiet reciproci bejniethom………….Fl-ahharnett, insibu wkoll sentenza tal-Qorti Civili Prim'Awla, konfermata mill-Qorti ta' l-Appell, li tghid li r-responsabbilta ta' l-arkitett u ta' l-appaltatur hi ratali, u mhix solidali, trattandosi ta' kolpa kontrattwali naxxenti minn obbligazzjoni kontrattwali. U inveru, ir-responsabbilta ta' l-arkitett u ta' l-appaltatur kontemplata fl-art.1732 ma tidderivax minn delitt jew kwazi, imma ssib l-origini taghha fil-kuntratt li bih ikun gie fdat il-bini jew xoghol imsemmi f'dak l-artikolu lill-arkitett u lill-appaltatur, u kwindi minn kolpa kontrattwali, u s-solidarjeta ma hi qatt prezunta; jekk ma tigiex dikjarata mil-ligi, ghandha tkun miftiehma espressament. "bhala arkitett imqabbad biex jiddirigi x-xoghol, ghandu jirrispondi, il-ghaliex meta l-arkitett ikun qieghed jiddirigi x-xogholijiet, hu ghandu jintervjeni fl-ezekuzzjoni taghhom."
Defendant was prosecuted acquitted of a charge of involuntary homicide - by failing to take the necessary care and diligence in the exercise of his profession, and non-observance of regulations he led to the death of another person. Though the case was on criminal liability, the Court commented that, "Ghandu jigi premess illi, ghall-accertament tal-htija minhabba f'kondotta negligenti, ghandu jsir il-konfront tal-kondotta effettivament adoperata ma' dik ta' persuna li s-sapjenza rumana identifikat mal-'bonus paterfamilias'; dik il-kondotta, cjoe, illi fil-kaz konkret kienet tigi wzata minn persuna ta' intelligenza, diligenza u sensibilita normali, kriterju dan li filwaqt li jservi ta' gwida oggettiva ghall-gudikant ihallieh fl-istess hin liberu li jivvaluta d-diligenza fil-kaz konkret. "Applikat ghall-professjonista, dan il-koncett huwa espress f'dawn it-termini minn Eddy. 'Professional Negligence': - "…………a man or a woman who practises a profession is bound to exercise the care and skill of an ordinary competent practitioner in that capacity." "Fil-kaz ta' professjonista, id-diligenza li dan ghandu jadopera hi dik ta' bniedem ordinarjament kompetenti fil-professjoni tieghu. Jekk jiehu zball fil-professjoni tieghu, hu ma jirrispondix ghad-danni, jekk l-izball ma jkunx grossolan, u jekk tkun giet adoperata d-diligenza ordinarja li trid il-ligi. Huwa mhux tenut ghad-danni rizultanti minn zball professjonali, ammenokke dan l-izball ma kienx grossolan, u ammenokke l-htija ma tkunx tista' tigi lilu addebitata minhabba nuqqas ta' prudenza u attenzjoni ta' missier tajjeb tal-familja." The court referred to the cases Cini v. Galea No. 12; Buttigieg v. Hirst No. 30 and Savona v. Dr. Asphar No. 29; and to the writings of Giorgi, Cattaneo and Cogliolo "Din il-Qorti,
tilqa' u sejra tapplika ghall-kaz prezenti, dan il-koncett ta' l-izball
professjonali, u hekk minghajr ma tirrikorri ghal ebda kwalifiki f'dan
ir-rigward tax-xorta ta' l-izball; u dan precizament biex taghmel
car illi l-attivita professjonali ma tgawdi ebda pozizzjoni specjali
quddiem il-ligi penali, u li l-professjonista, bhal kull cittadin iehor,
ghandu l-obbligu strett li fil-kondotta professjonali tieghu huwa juza'
skrupolozament ir-rizorsi tieghu kollha skond ma tirrikjedi s-sitwazzjoni.
Il-Qorti trid tnehhi kwalunkwe rifless li jista' jittiehed illi,
mentri ghall-professjonista, biex tigi stabilita l-htija kolpuza, irid
jirrizulta zball grossolan da parti tieghu, ghall-kondotta kolpuza ta'
haddiehor, invece, dan mhux necessarju. Aktar milli x-xorta ta' l-izball,
huwa l-apprezzament tac-cirkustanzi partikulari tal-fattispecje, bid-diffikultajiet
u r-relattivitajiet taghhom, li jiggwidaw lill-gudikant biex, fuq il-kriterju
tal-bonus paterfamilias, kif fuq espost, huwa jkun jista' jiddetermina
jekk in-ness ta' kawzalita bejn il-kondotta u l-event tal-kaz konkret
ikunx assodat jew le; u fil-kaz prezenti, jekk giex pruvat illi l-event
dannuz jirrisali necessarjament ghall-kondotta tal-appellant bhala kawza
guridika tieghu."
The responsibility of the architect is in contract not in tort. The structural defects must be serious for them to give rise to the liability of the architect in damages.
The Court of Appeal held the architect and the contractor liable for damages in solidum. The architect has in law a duty to ensure that works are carried out safely and to personally monitor the progress of such works. It is not enough for him to rely on what the contractor tells him but is in duty bound to make personal checks - failure to do so entails personal responsibility. "il-perit fil-kostruzzjoni ta' fond hu responsabbli ghad-disinn u daqsijiet tal-partijiet kollha tal-kostruzzjoni, u ghandu jaghmel supervizjoni fuq ix-xogholijiet biex jezamina u jara li x-xoghol ikun qieghed isir tajjeb u skond is-sengha. "L-azzjoni hi bazata fuq l-art.1074, 1075 u 1076 tal-Kodici Civili, li jirrendu responsabbli ghad-danni lil kull min, bi htija, cjoe b'nuqqas ta' prudenza, diligenza, jew ta' hsieb, jikkaguna hsara lil haddiehor. Ma jistax ikun hemm dubju illi dan il-konvenut kellu d-dmir li jassikura illi l-kostruzzjoni tal-bini in kwistjoni, specjalment ghal dik li hi solidita, issir sewwa u skond is-sengha…Infatti ma' kull 'building notice' li jinghata lill-Awtorita fuq il-formola preskritta, il-perit jiffirma dikjarazzjoni koncepita kif gej: 'I, the undersigned architect and civil engineer, do hereby declare that I assume the direction and responsibility of the works referred to in this Building Notice in terms of section 85(p) of the Code of Police Laws.'" The Court referred to Aquilina v. Sciortino where it was held that "the duty of an architect is to use the care and skill of an architect of ordinary competence measured by the professional standards of the time." The Court also quoted from Halsbury's 'Laws of England' which states that "although an architect is not expected to be constantly on the works and to supervise every detail, it is not sufficient for him to pay occasional visits and to get any defects which he may happen to notice set right; his duty is to give such an amount of supervision as will enable him to give an honest certificate whether or not the work has been done in accordance with the contract. And though his supervision may be partially, as to matters of detail, entrusted to subordinates……..the architect or engineer cannot exonerate himself by saying that the negligence was theirs." "bhala perit direttur u responsabbli, id-dmir tieghu kien li jaccerta ruhu personalment u direttament. "fil-konfront ta' l-attrici, l-kundanna tal-konvenuti ghall-hlas ghandha tkun solidali."
For a professional to be held liable in damages, he must have acted in 'gross negligence'. "wiehed ghandu jivvaluta l-kolpa fuq il-principju tal-kolpa professjonali. Infatti, ghalkemm l-azzjoni intentata hi dik akwiljana, hu car li ma hemmx kwistjoni ta' azzjoni 'ex delicto', ghaliex certament ma hemm ebda 'adminiculum probationis' li jista' jassoda li kien hemm xi kolluzjoni kriminuza bejn Casingena u l-konvenut. Tibqa' ghalhekk l-azzjoni 'ex quasi delicto' bazata cjoe fuq il-kolpa. Issa normalment taht il-ligi Aquilia, 'et laevissima culpa venit', imma fil-kaz tal-professjonista, il-kolpa jehtieg li tkun inkurja gravi jew injoranza supina."
The Court of Appeal
held that the liability of the architect in the case specifically contemplated
by law where the building falls or is in manifest danger of falling,
is not absolute but depends on the proved negligence of the architect.
Since the liability of the architect arises from contract, the applicable prescriptive period is that of five years. "bejn il-kontendenti kien hemm rapport kontrattwali, fis-sens li l-konvenut gie mqabbad fil-kwalita tieghu ta' perit arkitett biex jaghmel dak kollu li kien mehtieg in konnessjoni mal-bini in kwistjoni. Veru huwa li si tratta ta' prestazzjoni ta' opera mhux materjali, izda tant jekk dina tigi ikkunsidrata bhala 'locatio operarum', kemm jekk tigi kkunsidrata bhala mandat, jibqa' dejjem veru li si tratta ta' kuntratt. Ghaldaqstant issir applikabbli l-preskrizzjoni relativa ghall-obbligu naxxenti mill-kuntratt determinat. U peress li si tratta ta' kreditu mhux dikjarat soggett ghall-preskrizzjoni ohra, jaqa' taht il-preskrizzjoni ta' hames snin."
When the owner entrusts work on the building to an architect the responsibility for the works falls on the architect. "Attesoche non e a dir lo stesso nel caso in cui il proprietario si riserva la facolta di dirigere l'opera per mezzo di un architetto, nel quale caso la responsabbilta si trasferisce tutta a costui come il vero intraprenditore di professione, illuminato dai precetti della pratica e dell'arte. La quale considerazione pero ha luogo nel caso in cui l'imprenditore ha agito in ubbidienza agli ordini diretti, e non gia in quello in cui egli, approfittandosi talora della negligenza di costui, trasgredisce i piu elementari dettami dell'arte edilizia e consegna una opera che presenta vizi talmente grossolani da minacciare la stabilita della stessa, e cio sul motivo che l'impiego di un uomo della scienza a dirigere il lavoro non esime mai l'appaltatore dal prestare quella diligenza e quella perizia ordinaria che gli e imposta dalla natura del contratto."
The architect and the contractor are liable in solidum for the total or partial destruction of the building. "Che, quantunque
l'Art. 1398 della Ord. No. VII del 1868 invocato della sentenza da cui
e appello, nel dichiarare responsabbili l'architetto e l'appaltatore,
della distruzione totale o parziale dell'edifizio per difetto di costruzione,
non contiene alcuna espressa dichiarazione intorno all solidarieta della
loro obbligazione, siffatta solidarieta pero nasce da altre disposizioni
della legge affini a quella contenuta nel sopracitato articolo………..Art.756
dell'Ordinanza suddetta secondo la quale 'se la parte del danno che
ciascuno dei danneggiati ha cagionato non puo essere determinata, tutti
dovranno essere condannati in solido verso il danneggiato."
The architect is not responsible for any defects of construction which are not due to his negligence. "Attesoche,
sebbene e certo, che, quando l'edificio perisce per difetto di costruzione,
ed anche per vizio del suolo, l'Architetto ne e responsabile - la regola
pero non e applicabile nel caso in cui il difetto ed il vizio, usate
le comuni, solite, ed ordinarie diligenze che dagli Architetti si adoperano,
non sia stato di tale specie da poter essere osservato e preveduto.
La detta responsabilta dell'Architetto e basata sul fondamento che egli
sia stato in colpa nel non avere osservato e preveduto il difetto della
costruzione ed il vizio del suolo - e quindi deve cessare, quando nel
fatto consti che nonostante la ruina ed il danno sofferto dall'edifizio,
all'Architetto non sia stato imputabile alcun grado di colpa, sia per
imperizia, sia per omissione delle debite e solite precauzioni e diligenze."
The Court of Appeal did not hold the defendant liable in damages for the formation and subsequent dissolution of a partnership contract. There was no evidence of negligence.
Though the case was not strictly speaking on professional liability, the court stated that "il-principji tal-moralita professjonali huma superjuri ghal kwalunkwe konsiderazzjoni merament patrimonjali u l-ezercizzju tal-professjoni ghandu jkun f'kollox tali li ma jnaqqax fl-opinjoni tal-klient u tal-pubbliku in generali xi haga mill-attribut ta' dik l-integrita li hi patrimonju indiskuss u tradizzjonali ta' l-Avvokatura Maltija. Forsi ma' dan jista' jizdied il-kliem solenni ta' Lord Denning fejn qal 'it is a mistake to suppose that the advocate is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants, or his tool to do what he directs. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause, that of truth and justice."
Failing to file a writ of summons on time constitutes gross negligence on the part of lawyer and is thus liable in damages resulting therefrom. "ic-cirkustanzi
imsemmijin jiehdu ineluttibilment ghall-konkluzjoni li kien hemm inkurja
da parti tal-konvenut filli halla t-terminu ta' sitt ijiem jiskadi minghajr
ma ddeduca b'kawza l-pretensjoni ta' l-attur kontra l-imsemmi Kurunell
Mallia. Din l-inkurja l-konvenut ghandu jirrispondi ghaliha; ghaliex
skond il-principji stabiliti mid-dottrina u l-gurisprudenza dwar
dak li jissejjah 'errore professionale' minn din ir-responsabilta hu
eskluz l-izball derivanti mhux minn negligenza jew inkapacita tal-professjonista,
izda dak li jkun ir-rizultat ta' l-incertezza ta' l-istess professjoni;
u l-izball tal-konvenut kien appuntu dovut ghal inkurja gravi."
The Civil Code provisions on fault liability are applicable also to professionals. The standard of care required is that of a bonus paterfamilias and only in case of an express provision of the law is one answerable for culpa levissima. "li l-ligi komuni, applikabbli ghal kulhadd indistintament, 'in subjecta materia', hija li "kull wiehed iwiegeb ghall-hsara li tigri bil-htija tieghu" u li "jitqies fi htija kull min fl-ghemil tieghu ma juzax il-prudenza, id-diligenza u l-hsieb ta' missier tajjeb ta' familja", u li jikkomprendu l-attijiet ta' kommissjoni jew ommissjoni…….il-persuna responsabbli ghad-danni, fin-nuqqas ta' dispozizzjoni espressa fil-ligi, ma tirrispondix u ma tkunx tenuta ghall-htija superjuri fil-grad ghal dik tal-bonus paterfamilias, cjoe mhix responsabbli ghall-culpa lievissima - dak li gie anki assodat fil-gurisprudenza lokali. "Illi dawn il-principji japplikaw ruhhom anki ghal dawk il-membri tal-komunita li jezercitaw il-professjonijiet liberali. Huwa difficli u skabruz 'in subjecta materia' li tippreciza l-kawzi tar-responsabbilta; l-ghaliex mentri huwa ngust u mhux ragjonevoli li tirritjeni li dawk il-persuni huma dejjem assolutament responsabbli, mill-banda l-ohra huwa altrettant assurd u kontra l-ligi li jigi sostnut li huma qatt ma huma responsabbli, tkun kemm tkun gravi u kbira l-imperizja u imprudenza minnhom addimostrata fil-kaz konkret. In tema generali jinghad li l-principju li huwa t-test fundamentali, u li jifforma s-substratt ta' l-ezami sabiex gudikat jasal ghad-decizjoni dwar ir-responsabbilta tal-professjonisti jew le f'att taghhom huwa li jigi ezaminat jekk kienx hemm jew ma kienx hemm htija fl-att li jkun jifforma l-bazi ta' l-azzjoni; fi kliem iehor l-'actio de facto de quo disputatur', sew l-ghaliex b'vigilanza personali u fuq l-attijiet intraprizi mill-ordinarju pater familias seta' u kien possibbli li jigi evitat id-dannu, sew l-ghaliex il-fatt li kontra l-istess professjonista jigi migjub 'il quddiem ikun tali li jirrivela injoranza li mhix perdonabbli u immaginabbli f'persuna ta' dik id-data professjoni. "Illi
t-teorija ta' l-iskuzabbilita ta' l-izbalji professjonali ma holqotx
specji ohra ta' htija oltre dawk rikonoxxuti mil-ligi komuni,
imma stabiliet kriterju prattiku dwar id-diffikulta li tinkorri 'in
subjecta materia' ghat-tfittxija tal-htija fl-izbalji li jaqghu fihom,
bhal bnedmin umani kollha, dawk li jezercitaw il-professjonijiet. Fejn
l-izball ta' kommissjoni jew ommissjoni huwa dovut ghall-imperfezzjoni
tax-xjenza jew arti, skond il-kaz, l-agenti mhux ritenut responsabbli;
imma fejn il-persuna persegwitata ghad-danni tonqos, titraskura formalitajiet
indispensabbli u perentorji, kif ukoll turi negligenza fl-ezercizzju
tal-professjoni taghha, jew turi injoranza grassa fl-istess arti taghha,
ma hemmx ebda raguni legali l-ghaliex hija ma ghandiex tkun tenuta li
tirrispondi, skond il-ligi komuni, ghad-danni versu d-danneggjat."
The lawyer is liable in damages for wrong advice to the extent that such advice conflicts with established legal principles and is a manifestation of gross negligence. The Court referred
to the case of Fava v. Nutar Vella wherein it was held that "fuq
l-iskorta tad-dottrina u l-gurisprudenza patrija u estera, gie ritenut
li l-professjonista mhuwiex mizmum responsabbli ghall-izball tieghu
li ma jkunx sar b'qerq, jew bi htija kbira, jew minhabba injoranza grassa." "Huwa ormaj pacifiku fil-gurisprudenza nostrali, li taqbel f'dan il-punt ma' dik taljana u franciza, illi l-avukat ma jistax ikun tenut responsabbli di fronti ghall-klient tieghu sempliciment ghaliex il-parir tieghu ikun zbaljat, imma, biex tigi radikata dik ir-responsabbilta, jehtieg li jkun hemm agir doluz ossia frawdolenti, jew inkella li l-izball ta' l-avukat ikun l-effett ta' dak li b'nomenklatura diversa, izda b'identita ta' sostanza, tissejjah 'colposa ignoranza' jew 'supina ignoranza' jew 'evidente incapacita' jew 'grave incuria'. "Mhux dissimili
hija l-gurisprudenza ingliza; fejn sabiex fil-kaz ta' konsulent ikun
hemm 'actionable negligence', jehtieg li jkun hemm 'gross ignorance
or gross negligence'."
The fact that the court disagrees with the judgment and decision of a lawyer does not make him liable in damages towards his client unless it is proved that the lawyer acted in gross negligence. "Gie wkoll affermat minn din il-Qorti li 'la colpa come elemento per la rifazione dei danni non si verifica nell'avvocato o altro consulente legale per cio che il giudizio da lui espresso viene dal tribunale riconosciuto erroneo, ammenocche l'errore non sia cosi manifesto da essere l'effetto di colposa ignoranza o di evidente incapacita.'…..B'sentenza tal-25 ta' Gunju 1893, il-Qorti ta' Messina qalet: 'Gli avvocati e i procuratori legali non sono responsabili di fronte ai loro clienti se non per dolo o frode, oppure per supina ignoranza o per grave incuria', u l-Qorti ta' Ruma b'sentenza tat-23 ta' Novembru 1897, marret izjed 'il quddiem u qalet: 'l'errore professionale dell'avvocato niente ha di comune colla colpa e colla imperizia, e non obbliga a risarcimento di danni'. L-istess principji gew akkolti fid-Dritt Franciz, u infatti il-Prokuratur Generali Dupin, fir-rekwizitorja kontra tabib quddiem il-Qorti ta' Kassazzjoni Franciza qal: 'Per aversi responsabilta professionale fa d'uopo che taluno abbia commesso una colpa, non usando la dovuta vigilanza sopra se medesimo o sui propri atti, o dando prova di una ignoranza imperdonabile nell'esercizio della sua professione.'"
Since the relationship between a lawyer and his client is based on mandate, the applicable prescriptive period in case of an action for damages against the lawyer, is that of five years. "Hu maghruf
illi ghall-finijiet tal-preskrizzjoni l-ligi u l-gurisprudenza jiddistingwu
tliet kwalitajiet ta' danni, jigifieri danni 'ex delicto', f'liema kaz
il-preskrizzjoni civili hija dik tal-ligi kriminali, id-danni li gejjin
minn kolpa akwiljana jew extra kontrattwali, jigifieri gejjin minn fatti
li mhumiex reati u lanqas minn inadempjenza ta' kuntratt, f'liema kaz
il-preskrizzjoni hija dik ta' sentejn, u d-danni kontrattwali, jigifieri
dawk li gejjin minn inadempjenza ta' kuntratt, f'liema kaz m'hijiex
applikabbli l-preskrizzjoni ta' l-art. 2258 fuq imsemmi, imma dik ta'
l-istess obligazzjoni………Jinsab assodat fil-gurisprudenza
tal-Qrati taghna illi r-relazzjonijiet bejn l-avukat u l-klient tieghu
jirrivestu n-natura tal-mandat u ghalhekk il-preskrizzjoni applikabbli
f'dan il-kaz hija dik ta' l-istess obligazzjoni bejn il-kontendenti,
jigifieri tal-kuntratt tal-mandat li ntercieda bejniethom, jew fiz-zmien
ta' hames snin."
The professional is not liable in damages unless his error of judgment is due to fraud, gross negligence or crass ignorance. "huwa importanti
li jigu premessi l-principji li jirregolaw ir-responsabbilta tal-professjonisti: The fact that a lawyer's judgment was considered erroneous by the court does not make him liable in damages to his client unless there is proof of crass ignorance. "La colpa
come elemento per la rifazione di danni, non si verifica nell'avvocato,
od altro consulente legale, per cio solo che il giudizio da lui espresso
viene dal tribunale riconosciuto erroneo, ammenoche l'errore non sia
cosi manifesto da essere l'effetto di colposa ignoranza e di evidente
incapacita."
Plaintiffs had sought advice from defendant prior to entering into two loan agreements (mutuum). Dr. Cremona had confirmed that the assets of defendant Meilak consisted not only in those described by Michele Cassar but included other goods worth as much as, if not more, than the assets so described. On the basis of such advice, plaintiffs entered into the loan agreements. It later resulted that Meilak's assets were not sufficient to cover the loans taken out because two tenements which had been indicated as distinct were in fact one and the same tenement. Plaintiffs sued the lawyer for damages but the court found that Dr. Cremona was not liable since he had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. "Che di
questi danni pero, talvolta anche liquidabili in somma maggiore, non
e in alcun modo responsabile il convenuto Cremona perche egli nell'esecuzione
dell'incarico affidatogli, non si e reso colpevole ai termini di
legge, avendovi adoperata la prudenza, la diligenza e l'attenzione di
un buon padre di famiglia."
Agius Fernandez v. Buttigieg 6/10/58 See above - No. 23 Reitano v. Cumbo 31/5/57 See above - No. 13 Zammit v. Dr. Caruana 4/12/57 See above - No. 24
All are liable for the damages that arise through their fault, that is, for not having used the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. A professional is only liable for damages arising from errors of judgment if he does not use the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. A surgeon who does not monitor the convalescence of a patient who has undergone an operation does not fulfill the required standard of care and diligence. In coming to its conclusion, the Court analysed the opinion of various textwriters including that of Giorgi and Laurent, as well local and foreign jurisprudence. "Il-Qorti taqbel mal-periti li zball fl-interpretazzjoni ta' fatti klinici ma ghandux jirrendi t-tabib jew kirurgu responsabbli ghall-konsegwenzi taghhom. Zbalji jistghu jittiehdu, u fil-fatt jittiehdu; u kien ikun gwaj sewwa kieku l-professjonista kellu jirrispondi ghal kull zball li jiehu l-ghaliex ma jirnexxilux jiggudika rettament; imma - u dana del resto ammettewh l-istess periti - ghandha ssir distinzjoni bejn meta l-izball jittiehed ghal ragunijiet indipendenti mill-volonta u mill-agir ta' min jiehdu u meta l-izball jittiehed minhabba xi mankanza f'min jiehu dak l-izball. F'dan l-ahhar kaz, min jiehu l-izball ikun in kolpa minhabba dik il-mankanza tieghu, li minghajrha x'aktarx l-izball ma kienx jittiehed; u allura huwa jirrispondi ghall-konsegwenzi ta' dak l-izball li jkun ittiehed minhabba dik il-htija tieghu. Jekk, per ezempju, tabib jew kirurgu jaqa' f'errur ta' gudizzju u jizbalja wara li jkun ezamina sewwa l-kaz ta' quddiemu u jkun ghamel il-possibbli kollu biex jistudjah u jaghrfu, allura certament l-ebda responsabilta professjonali ma jista' jkollu ghall-konsegwenzi; imma ghall-kuntrarju, jekk l-izball jiehdu ghaliex ma jkunx ezamina l-kaz kif imissu, u l-ezami jsir b'negligenza, allura huwa responsabbli ghall-konsegwenzi ta' l-izball tieghu. "Ga ladarba l-konvenut zbalja ghaliex kien negligenti fl-ewwel ezami tal-pazjent fic-cirkustanza fuq indikata, u ghaliex wera imprudenza meta ma zammx il-pazjent kontinwament taht ghajnejh meta l-periklu tal-gangrena kien tant prezenti, il-konvenut kien in kolpa, u allura r-responsabilta tieghu professjonali ma tistax tigi negata. F'kaz piu o meno simili, quddiem il-King's Bench Division fil-11 ta' April ta' din is-sena, riportat fil-British Medical Journal tal-14 ta' Mejju 1949, kirurgu li, wara li kien opera tarbija f'sebaghha z-zghir ta' l-id il-leminija, ezamina t-tarbija li kellha dak is-saba' minfuh u mwegga', u ma ha l-ebda pass biex jirrimedja ghall-istrettezza tal-faxxa, u ssopraveniet il-gangrena, gie kundannat ghad-danni, l-ghaliex gie ritenut illi dak l-ezami li ghamel ma kienx komplet, u kwindi negligenti; "ftit huma certament il-professjonisti - mhux biss tobba imma professjonisti ohra - li qatt ma kienu negligenti f'xi mument tal-hajja professjonali difficli u fatikuza; in-negligenza tal-konvenut f'dina l-okkazjoni kienet xi haga li setghet giet kommessa minn kull kirurgu iehor. "Mid-dottrina
u mill-gurisprudenza ghandu jigi ritenut li t-tabib mhux tenut ghad-danni
rizultanti minn zball professjonali, ammenokke dana l-izball ma jkunx
grossolan, u ammenokke l-hsara ma tistax tigi lilu addebitata minhabba
nuqqas ta' prudenza, diligenza u attenzjoni ta' bonus paterfamilias."
A professional is not liable for damages arising from errors of judgment unless he fails to use the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. "jidher illi l-impjegati tal-konvenut nomine hadu dawk il-prekawzjonijiet li kien jidhrilhom mehtiega qabel ma ghamlu d-dikjarazzjoni fuq l-istat tal-baqra; u ghalhekk tigi l-kwistjoni hemmx fihom dik in-nuqqas ta' diligenza ordinarja li trid il-ligi. L-awtur fuq citat jghid: 'Nelle professioni c'e tutto un campo insindacabile ed impunibile, ed e quello che il diritto inglese chiama errore di giudizio, il professionista, cioe, di fronte ad un caso pratico valuta le varie circostanze e si forma un convincimento che poi i fatti successivi mostrano errato; di questo errore nessuno risponde, se non e fondato su evidenti errori di ricerca o di dottrina. Veru huwa li 'imperitia culpae adnumeratur' applikat anki minn Celso fil-kaz ta' hajjat u minn Gaio fil-kaz ta' gwidatur tal-barrin; izda jrid ikun pruvat soddisfacentement illi l-professjonista mhux biss ha zball, ammenokke dan ma jkunx grossolan, izda illi biex jasal ghall-konkluzjoni tieghu ma uzax id-diligenza li trid il-ligi."
See above - No.
26 TABIB
Defendant was not held liable in damages, not enough proof being submitted that he failed to exercise the diligence and care required of a member of the medical profession. Plaintiffs' mother was receiving care in the intensive care unit at St Luke's Hospital, was subsequently sent home with the specific instructions of the need to wear an oxygen mask and to take a number of medicines, and later was admitted to hospital again where she eventually died. Plaintiffs alleged that their mother's death had been caused as a result of defendant's negligence. The Court referred to Civil Code provisions on tort, to the teachings of Giorgi, Cogliolo and to the following cases: Savona v. Dr. Asphar No. 29; Calafato v. Grech (relating to the standard of care required in tort in general); Buttigieg v. Hirst No. 29; Cremona v. Cremona No. 28 ; Barbara v. Vella No. 27; Pulizija v. Portelli No. 10. Reference was also made to the English case of Hucks v. Cole wherein Lord Denning held that: 'A charge of professional negligence against a medical man was serious. It stood on a different footing to a charge of negligence against the driver of a motor car. The consequences were far more serious. It affected his professional status and reputation. The burden of proof was correspondingly greater. As the charge was so grave, so should the proof be clear. With the best will in the world, things sometimes went amiss in surgical operations or medical treatment. A doctor was not to be held negligent simply because something went wrong. He was not liable for mischance or misadventure; or for an error of judgment. He was not liable for taking one choice out of two or for favouring one school rather than another. He was liable when he fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field so much so that his conduct might be deserving of censure or inexcusable.' The court also quoted Archbold wherein it is stated that 'A physician or surgeon owes a duty to the patient to use diligence, care, knowledge, skill and caution in administering treatment, and the law requires not the highest, or a very high standard, but a reasonable standard of care and competence…." After analysing doctrine and jurisprudence the court adopted the conclusions therein, that is, that a professional is only liable for gross negligence, for failing to exercise the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. "Ma jirrizultax illi l-konvenut agixxa b'xi mod li ma huwiex mistenni minn persuna fil-kariga tieghu partikulari u ghalhekk ma jistax jinghad illi huwa naqas minn dak mistenni minn professjonista fl-ezercizzju tal-professjoni tieghu sal-grad fuq diskuss."
See above - No. 29 |
