A Tizzano, Vice-President,
Presidents of Chambers M Ilešič, L Bay Larsen, T von Danwitz, CG Fernlund, C Vajda,
Judges J‑C Bonichot, A Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), C Toader, M Safjan, D Šváby, A Prechal
Advocate General Y Bot
The defendants, who had a farm in Portugal, employed the victim, the wife of the first claimant, as a labourer. The victim worked in the defendants’ vineyard, applying herbicide which was inside a drum with a spraying device mounted on the back part of an agricultural tractor and suspended therefrom. The tractor was stationary, but with the engine running to drive the spray pump for the herbicide. The weight of the tractor, the vibrations produced by the engine and the spray pump and the movement, including by the victim, of the herbicide hose leading from the drum, together with the heavy rainfall that day, caused a landslip which carried the tractor away. The tractor fell down the terraces and overturned, reaching the four workers below. The victim was crushed by the tractor, and died as a result. The tractor was registered in the name of the wife of the defendant’s farm manager, the victim’s immediate superior. The tractor owner had concluded an insurance contract with the second claimant insurance company, although the defendants had taken out insurance with another insurance company covering their liability for occupational accidents. That company paid compensation to the claimant, the victim’s widower, in respect of the material loss resulting from the accident. The claimant also brought an action seeking an order either for the defendants, the farm manager and his wife, jointly and severally, or alternatively, the insurer of the tractor, to pay damages for non-material loss resulting from the accident. The court of first instance granted the claim in part, finding the farm manager and defendants jointly and severally liable to pay part of the sums claimed, but dismissed the claim against the farm manager’s wife and the insurer on the ground that the tractor in question was not involved in a traffic accident capable of being covered by insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, since the accident had not occurred when the tractor was being used as a means of travel. The defendants appealed to the Portuguese referring court, arguing that the accident had occurred while the tractor was operating in the course of agricultural work, and therefore had to be covered by the insurance taken out by the tractor owner, irrespective of whether the tractor was stationary, parked or travelling. The farm manager, who also lodged an appeal, submitted that the insurance contract covered civil liability for damage caused by implements attached to the insured vehicle and resulting from the operation of that vehicle. The court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question, in essence, whether the concept of “use of vehicles”, referred to in article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), covered a situation such as that in issue.
On the reference—
Held, the scope of the concept of “use of vehicles” did not depend on the characteristics of the terrain on which the motor vehicle was used. The motor vehicles referred to in article 1(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC were, irrespective of their characteristics, intended normally to serve as means of transport. It followed that the concept of “use of vehicles” within the meaning of article 3(1) of that Directive covered any use of a vehicle as a means of transport. The fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was stationary when the accident occurred did not, in itself, preclude the use of that vehicle at that time from falling within the scope of its function as a means of transport and, therefore, within the scope of the concept of “use of vehicles”. Furthermore, whether or not its engine was running at the time when the accident occurred was not conclusive in that respect. However, in the case of vehicles which, like the tractor in question, were intended, apart from their normal use as a means of transport, to be used in certain circumstances as machines for carrying out work, it was necessary to determine whether, at the time of the accident involving such a vehicle, that vehicle was being used principally as a means of transport, in which case that use could be covered by the concept of “use of vehicles” within the meaning of article 3(1), or as a machine for carrying out work, in which case the use in question could not be covered by that concept. In the present case, at the time of the accident, that tractor was being used to generate the motive power required to drive the pump of the herbicide sprayer attached to it for the purpose of applying herbicide to the vines on a farm. It thus appeared that such use was principally connected with the function of that tractor as a machine for carrying out work and not as a means of transport, and, therefore, was not covered by the concept of “use of vehicles” within the meaning of article 3(1) (judgment, paras 35–42, operative part).
L Ferreira for the defendants.
L Inez Fernandes, M Figueiredo and S Jaulino, agents, for the Portuguese Government.
Alan Bates (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the United Kingdom Government.
N Grünberg, agent, for the Estonian Government.
Ciarán Toland SC, Glen Gibbons and Jonathan Buttimore (instructed by L Williams, G Hodge, M Browne and A Joyce, agents) for Ireland.
V Ester Casas, agent, for the Spanish Government.
I Kucina and G Bambāne, agents, for the Latvian Government.
M França and K-P Wojcik, agents, for the European Commission.