David Robertson v Cornwall Council
[2024] EWHC 2830 (KB)
Demetrios Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council
20 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2614 (KB)
High Court
A cyclist fell into a hole on a grassy area next to a path. He sued the council, but they won because they showed they did regular checks and the hole was probably new. The cyclist was also partly to blame for going too fast.
Key Facts
- •Demetrios Karpasitis, a cyclist, fell into a hole on a grass verge next to a footpath.
- •The accident occurred near a signpost on a path adjacent to the A10 road.
- •The path was officially designated as a footpath, but was also used by cyclists.
- •The hole was not recorded during previous inspections.
- •The Claimant alleged breach of s41 Highways Act 1980 and a common law duty of care.
- •A split trial addressed liability and quantum separately.
Legal Principles
Highway authorities have a duty to maintain highways to a standard that renders them reasonably passable for ordinary traffic without danger.
Section 41, Highways Act 1980; Burnside v Emerson [1968] 1 WLR 1490
The duty under s41 is to repair and keep in repair, not to take reasonable care to prevent danger.
Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000] 1 WLR 1356; Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] UKHL 15
In considering dangerousness, the court considers the character of the highway, expected traffic, and the reasonable expectations of the public.
Section 58, Highways Act 1980; James v Preseli Pembrokeshire DC [1993] PIQR P114; Griffiths v Gwynedd CC [2015] EWCA Civ 1440
A highway authority can be liable in negligence for positive acts of entrapment, but not for mere omissions.
Thompson v Hampshire County Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1016; Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] UKHL 15
Contributory negligence reduces damages where the claimant's actions contributed to the accident.
Outcomes
Judgment for the Defendant.
The Defendant successfully established the s58 defence by showing that they had taken reasonable care in maintaining the highway. The court found the hole likely did not exist at the time of the last inspection and that the Claimant's actions (speed and sharp turn) contributed to the accident.
Claim under s41 Highways Act 1980 dismissed.
The court found that the hole, while dangerous, was not present at the time of the last inspection, and the defendant had met their burden of proof under section 58.
Common law negligence claim dismissed.
The Defendant's failure to add signage was an omission, not a positive act creating liability, and the existing signage and path conditions were sufficient to inform cyclists that the path was not a shared cycleway beyond the bridge.
33% contributory negligence found.
The Claimant's excessive speed and sharp turn onto the verge contributed to the accident.