Demetrios Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council
[2023] EWHC 2614 (KB)
David Robertson v Cornwall Council
6 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2830 (KB)
High Court
A cyclist sued the council after falling on a raised kerb next to a cycle path. The judge said he didn't prove the kerb caused the fall, or that the part he fell on was dangerous enough. The appeal court agreed, saying the cyclist needed better evidence, like measurements of the kerb's height, to win. They highlighted the need to prove both that the kerb caused the fall and that the specific section of kerb was dangerous.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sustained a head injury in a bicycle accident on 20 May 2018.
- •Accident occurred while Claimant and his wife were cycling on the A3037 in Cornwall.
- •The accident involved a raised kerb separating the road from a cycleway.
- •The raised kerb was a result of resurfacing works carried out by different contractors.
- •Damages were agreed at £50,000 subject to liability.
- •Claimant's case was based on misfeasance due to a hazardous kerb.
- •No precise measurements of the kerb height were taken.
- •Evidence included witness statements from Cormac employees and a police officer.
- •The judge dismissed the claim, finding the claimant hadn't proven causation.
- •Claimant appealed, arguing the judge's reasoning was inadequate and his decision was wrong.
Legal Principles
Non-delegable duty of highway authorities.
Yetkin v Newham LBC [2011] 2 WLR 1073, Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057
Causation in negligence: While precise mechanism need not always be proven, the claimant must show it's more likely than not that the defendant's negligence caused the damage. Common sense and pragmatic approach to evidence is permitted where indications are equivocal.
Drake v Harbour [2008] EWCA Civ 25, Sobolewska v Threlfall [2014] EWHC 4219 (QB), Clerk & Lindsell at paragraph 2-07
Appellate court review of first instance decisions: Interference only where the finding is unsupported by evidence or no reasonable judge could have reached it. Evaluative judgments are reviewed for identifiable flaws, not re-evaluated.
McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, Haringey LBC v Ahmed & Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 1861, Prescott v Sprintroom Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 932
In a misfeasance claim, the claimant must prove the specific defect on the balance of probabilities, not merely a general criticism of the whole area.
James & Thomas v Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council (1993) PIQR P114, Walsh v Kirklees MBC [2019] EWHC 492 (QB)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings of fact were permissible. The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the raised kerb caused the accident; even if it did, he failed to prove that the part of the kerb which caused the fall was a hazard.