Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 501

Summary: - A direct actor is a person whose act, personally performed by him, has itself brought about the damage and caused it without an intermediary. Direct causation differs from indirect causation, which is a cause of the matter but does not itself bring it about. - The driver of a vehicle is considered the direct actor in respect of every damage resulting from the direct intervention of the vehicle’s movement, which is his act. The absence of fault on his part does not alter his liability as a direct actor. Reason therefor: This liability is based on directly causing damage, not on fault. Effect thereof. It is not negated as a consequence of the absence of fault so long as he brought about the damage through his act and produced it himself. The direct actor’s liability is not lifted merely because the injured party committed a fault, so long as it did not rise to the level of gross misconduct. Violation of traffic rules does not constitute gross misconduct and does not lift the direct actor’s liability. - Determining whether the direct actor’s act itself brought about the damage without an intermediary, or negating this. A matter of fact. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that a direct actor is a person whose act, personally performed by him, has itself brought about the damage and caused it without an intermediary, that is, without anything intervening between that act and the damage resulting directly from it. Direct causation differs from indirect causation, which is a cause of the matter but does not itself bring it about. Since the movement of a vehicle is the act of its driver, being the result of his activity, he is considered the direct actor in respect of every damage resulting from that movement’s direct intervention in causing it. The absence of his fault does not alter the existence of the direct actor’s liability in this manner, since this liability is not based on fault but on directly causing damage. Consequently, it is not negated as a consequence of the absence of his fault so long as he is the person who, through his act, brought about the damage and produced it himself without an intermediary. Nor is his liability lifted merely because the injured party committed a fault. Violation of traffic rules does not rise to the level of the gross misconduct intended on his part, and it does not lift the liability of the driver of the insured vehicle in his capacity as direct actor. Determining whether the direct actor’s act itself brought about the damage without an intermediary, or negating this, is a factual matter that the trial court independently assesses without review, provided that its inference is reasonable and has an established basis in the papers.