Employer must assess risk even when a vehicle is road-legal

The Court of Appeal decided B.J. vs Maltapost Plc on 26 March 2026. Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Christian Falzon Scerri and Madam Justice Josette Demicoli held that an employer must assess the risk of a work vehicle even when the vehicle is certified for the road without a seat belt. The court held Maltapost Plc 40% liable for a postal worker's death and set the damages at €40,622.40.

The facts

On 7 May 2020 a postal worker in her late teens was driving a company delivery vehicle, which had no doors and no seat belt, on her way to start her round. The vehicle mounted a pavement at a gentle bend and turned over. She fell out and died of head injuries when the vehicle came to rest on her.

Her heirs sued Maltapost Plc, arguing that it failed to take the measures needed to protect her health and safety. On 6 March 2025 the First Hall of the Civil Court found the company and the worker each 50% responsible and awarded €155,000. The company appealed on liability and on the amount.

What the court held

Having watched the CCTV footage, the court found that the crash happened because the worker was not paying attention: she failed to steer through a gentle bend, with a lit cigarette in her left hand. The police recorded a dry road, clear weather and no other vehicle. The court held that the first court was wrong to blame her training or the short time since she got her licence.

That did not clear the company. The vehicle was road-legal without a seat belt, but the court held that this did not reduce the employer's duties under article 6(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act (Chapter 424 of the Laws of Malta) and regulation 5 of S.L. 424.18. Those duties are now in article 12 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (Chapter 646).

The company showed no risk assessment for sending doorless vehicles without seat belts onto main roads, where traffic moves faster. Its own witnesses said the company had imported another model fitted with a seat belt.

The court reasoned that the duty covers a worker's lapses: "Prinċipal huwa għalhekk mistenni li jaħseb għal dawk is-sitwazzjonijiet li fihom il-ħaddiem tiegħu jkun aljenat" (an employer is therefore expected to think of those situations in which its worker is distracted). On a balance of probabilities, a fastened seat belt would have kept her in the cab.

Postal workers are exempt from wearing seat belts while delivering or collecting mail. The court noted that she was travelling to her round, and held that the exemption would not have stopped her wearing a belt had the vehicle had one.

The court also found a failure of supervision under article 6(3) of Chapter 424. The footage showed her leaving the premises with her helmet strap loose and a cigarette in her hand, in view of the security officer at the gate. She wore a medium helmet rather than the small one issued to her, and the expert in the magisterial inquiry said her own helmet would not have come off.

A company director accepted that workers could swap helmets, yet the company did nothing about it. The court held that it could have ordered workers not to swap, carried out spot checks on its premises and disciplined those caught.

Because the worker's inattention caused the crash, the court held that the company's share must be below half. Its failures were serious enough to limit the reduction to 10 percentage points, so liability was set at 40%.

On damages, the court accepted all three of the company's complaints. A multiplier of 45 years ignored the chances and changes of life, so it applied 35. There was no evidence that the heirs depended on her income, so it deducted two-thirds, and it deducted a further 25% for what she would have spent on herself.

From a base of €14,508, the court reached €507,780, reduced it by her 60% share under article 1051 of the Civil Code, applied the two deductions and a 20% lump-sum deduction, and arrived at €40,622.40. Interest still runs from the date of the first judgment, because the company raised no specific complaint about it.

Why it matters

An employer cannot treat a vehicle's type approval or registration as its risk assessment. It must look at how and where workers will use the equipment, and plan for a distracted worker. Lawyers for the family of a young victim should expect a two-thirds deduction unless they prove dependency.

Where it sits

The case applies the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work, read with contributory fault under article 1051 of the Civil Code. For the safe system of work and supervision, the court cited its own judgments of 25 April 2024, 20 July 2020, 17 October 2024 and 12 July 2023. On the public-interest character of the safety duties, it cited the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) of 3 October 2007.

For the rule that equipment left as bought is no excuse, it cited the Court of Appeal of 26 October 2022, and for the duty to foresee a distracted worker, the Court of Appeal of 3 April 2009. On the multiplier it cited the Court of Appeal of 7 November 2024, 15 June 2023 and 30 March 2022, and on the two-thirds deduction the Court of Appeal of 1 April 2014 and 28 November 2003.

Source

Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), 383/2022/2, 26 March 2026.