Has anyone sued a local authority over a pothole?

outfox

I hit one in Cork a few days before Xmas. A crater, full of water so I didn't see it. IN THE CYCLE LANE. Torn clothing (maiden voyage for new leggings), bar tape ripped off (expensive Lizardskin only a few weeks old), minor front wheel buckle, cuts, bruises, and a finger nail ripped out completely including the root. I imagine suing would be a waste of time. But just wondering if anyone has sued over something like this.

seamus

You can't sue over potholes unless you can prove the pothole was the result of a faulty repair.

There is no contractual obligation on local authorities to maintain the roads, therefore no fault in tort law when you're injured as the result of a failure to maintain the road.

ford2600

seamus wrote: »

You can't sue over potholes unless you can prove the pothole was the result of a faulty repair.

There is no contractual obligation on local authorities to maintain the roads, therefore no fault in tort law when you're injured as the result of a failure to maintain the road.

Examine pothole stick up a photograph or two.
Previous defective repair of pothole, adjacent defective works, substandard construction would be grounds for case.
Is thete any service trench close by, usually not repaired well
Other than that local authorities can leave rosds fall asunder

Beasty

I have successfully claimed against the local Council over a very poor road repair - my original claim was against a sub-contractor, but they went bust and eventually the Council's insurers paid up

On the point of whether it just has to be a bad repair, I know there is case law in Ireland on this where a Council successfully used the fact the pothole had formed and no repair had been attempted. However I also believe that if the Council have been notified that a pothole is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it (for example they could at least cordon the section of road off or put warning signs up) within a reasonable period of receiving the notification of the problem they could potentially leave themselves open to a claim

outfox

seamus wrote: »

There is no contractual obligation on local authorities to maintain the roads, therefore no fault in tort law when you're injured as the result of a failure to maintain the road.

I have to admit, that's news to me. I just assumed they were obliged to maintain the roads in good condition.
This explains a lot.

Kristopherus

Beasty wrote: »

I have successfully claimed against the local Council over a very poor road repair - my original claim was against a sub-contractor, but they went bust and eventually the Council's insurers paid up

On the point of whether it just has to be a bad repair, I know there is case law in Ireland on this where a Council successfully used the fact the pothole had formed and no repair had been attempted. However I also believe that if the Council have been notified that a pothole is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it (for example they could at least cordon the section of road off or put warning signs up) within a reasonable period of receiving the notification of the problem they could potentially leave themselves open to a claim

Thats my understanding of the issue as well. The Council can be notified via www.fixmystreet.ie. But you would have to watch the pothole constantly to make sure the Council did not remedy it.

Slo_Rida

outfox wrote: »

I hit one in Cork a few days before Xmas. A crater, full of water so I didn't see it. IN THE CYCLE LANE. Torn clothing (maiden voyage for new leggings), bar tape ripped off (expensive Lizardskin only a few weeks old), minor front wheel buckle, cuts, bruises, and a finger nail ripped out completely including the root. I imagine suing would be a waste of time. But just wondering if anyone has sued over something like this.

Jesus, have a go anyway I'd say. Sounds nasty...

07Lapierre

outfox wrote: »

I hit one in Cork a few days before Xmas. A crater, full of water so I didn't see it. IN THE CYCLE LANE. Torn clothing (maiden voyage for new leggings), bar tape ripped off (expensive Lizardskin only a few weeks old), minor front wheel buckle, cuts, bruises, and a finger nail ripped out completely including the root. I imagine suing would be a waste of time. But just wondering if anyone has sued over something like this.

Avoid cycling thru water if u can....lesson leart eh? P.s. Speedy recovery.

seamus

Just to clarify/back up the stuff above, this falls into the area of civil law, which my understanding of is rudimentary.

Broadly, civil law has two main areas (and a few small ones); contract law (dealing with formal agreements) and tort law, dealing with basically everything else; i.e. where there is no formal agreement between the parties involved.

Loss or damages arising out of formal or informal civil obligations fall under one of three headings:

1. Misfeasance: I accidentally fncked up
2. Malfeasance: I deliberately fncked up
3. Nonfeasance: I did fncking nothing

Nonfeasance is only actionable in contract law, because there was a formal obligation to act. In tort law, there is no obligation to act, therefore you cannot be sued when you've done nothing to cause any injury or damage. This is almost always used in reference to civil authorities and the roads, and it's well established that if something becomes damaged through natural causes rather than a poor repair (which would be misfeasance), then there is no scope for anyone to sue the council.

After all, it's not the council's fault that the rain washed the road away; they don't make it rain

outfox

Lesson learnt as 07L says. Avoid waterlogged areas.
Have to recruit a new finger for nose picking...

morana

I claimed for 2 open4 rims off Dublin CoCo after a similar incident. I took photos of the pothole and sent them in and they sent out an inspector to meet me at the site and paid me shortly afterwards.

ZiabR

I claimed before for 2 tires and 2 alloy rims on a car without any issues. I have heard of others claiming for similar and getting the rims/tires replaced.

I had to provide pictures of the pot hole and also the damaged wheels etc.

I know this was a car, but surely it is the same for bikes?

aFlabbyPanda

I've also made a claim but again it was for a car (2 alloy wheels on the passenger side destroyed when I hit a pothole) so there is precedent.

07Lapierre

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Jesus, have a go anyway I'd say. Sounds nasty...

If what Seamus says here is true, I dis-agree with people making a claim for compensation. I think it just encourages the current "Compo Culture" and i also think it discourages Co. Councils providing facilites for cyclists (and other sports).

I'm assuming the incident the OP is referring to is the result of a pothole caused by the recent bad weather and not by a bad road repair.

ford2600

07Lapierre wrote: »

If what Seamus says here is true, I dis-agree with people making a claim for compensation. I think it just encourages the current "Compo Culture" and i also think it discourages Co. Councils providing facilites for cyclists (and other sports).

I'm assuming the incident the OP is referring to is the result of a pothole caused by the recent bad weather and not by a bad road repair.

Might be a big assumption.

Damage as a result of water is often as a result of
*inadequate drainage
*failure to stop private property owners discharging water on road
*some contractor/local authority employee not doing their job

It may also be just wear and tear in which case op is goosed

OldBean

07Lapierre wrote: »

If what Seamus says here is true, I dis-agree with people making a claim for compensation. I think it just encourages the current "Compo Culture" and i also think it discourages Co. Councils providing facilites for cyclists (and other sports).

I'm assuming the incident the OP is referring to is the result of a pothole caused by the recent bad weather and not by a bad road repair.

You'd hope it'd make them get facilities in place to avoid more people looking for compensation....

joe50

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think it just encourages the current "Compo Culture"

I think it's an example example of this to be honest..

clubs running races on public roads can't take the risk to mark the holes, as they can be held liable if someone crashes...

how far do you go with it? if someone doesn't call a hole on a club spin do they become liable for your subsequent crash?

cycling isn't by any means a dangerous occupation, but it has associated risks, the same as anything else

suing the council over a pothole is morally reprehensible in my honest opinion

Beasty

joe50 wrote: »

suing the council over a pothole is morally reprehensible in my honest opinion

Suing a council for negligence is absolutely fine in my books. If the Council are aware a road is dangerous and choose to ignore it they (and their insurers) should face the consequences. The Council is no different from any other organisation and should not be allowed to get away with negligence (if that's what it is).

As I've already indicated, I am not talking about wear and tear that they are unaware of. I'm talking about a situation where they know there is a problem and choose to ignore it (which is part of the reason they are required to take out insurance in the first place). In my case a poor road repair left me concussed, in hospital for 4 days and requiring a skin graft around my eye (together with plenty of road rash) - I sued on a matter of principle - I could have claimed a lot more than I did and all the compensation I received went to good (cycling-related) causes. Hopefully they will make sure more care is taken when repairing the road next time

Lawr

joe50 wrote: »

suing the council over a pothole is morally reprehensible in my honest opinion

It is morally reprehensible that city councils allow private contractors to dig up roads that are paid for from public funds and not enforce the contractors obligation to leave that road as they found it, respecting the public purse. I don't know how many times I've been put in precarious positions because of poorly filled trenches or inadequately repaired potholes hidden by water. It is criminal really. The city/county contractors should be pursued by the councils through the courts if necessary. Their negligence is a breach of contract for sure. The idea of using "preferred" contractors who repeatedly under-perform needs to be repeatedly examined and speedily rectified. These businesses are parasitic at best, and when they endanger the public through their negligence, they are at worst purulent felons. Who to jail? The contractor or the council who ignores the poor performance?

outfox

I dont know if the particular pothole I hit was due to wear and tear, or a faulty repair. On the one hand, I disagree with suing for the sake of suing, and I hate the compo culture that has developed. On the other hand, I'm really pissed at Cork City Council for allowing such a pothole to damage me, my bike and my gear. I'm out of pocket by about 200 euro, and sporting a finger like someone ran it over a chainsaw. I guess that ultimately the decision not to sue is based on the hassle of dealing with solicitors, engineers, etc., and knowing that they'll all take a cut. I should count myself lucky in comparison with Beasty, who's ordeal was a whole lot worse.
It's not often I cycle in Cork City, but I really noticed how appaling the cycle lane on Western Road and the Mardyke is. Potholes, trenches, cracks, gullies, cycle lanes that stop dead in the middle of nowhere. You'd need your wits about you.

Traumadoc

I did a medical report a few years ago for someone who got injured on a cycle path.

Actually might get the council to do something about them.

joe50

Beasty wrote: »

Suing a council for negligence is absolutely fine in my books. If the Council are aware a road is dangerous and choose to ignore it they (and their insurers) should face the consequences. The Council is no different from any other organisation and should not be allowed to get away with negligence (if that's what it is).

As I've already indicated, I am not talking about wear and tear that they are unaware of. I'm talking about a situation where they know there is a problem and choose to ignore it (which is part of the reason they are required to take out insurance in the first place). In my case a poor road repair left me concussed, in hospital for 4 days and requiring a skin graft around my eye (together with plenty of road rash) - I sued on a matter of principle - I could have claimed a lot more than I did and all the compensation I received went to good (cycling-related) causes. Hopefully they will make sure more care is taken when repairing the road next time

yeah, ok, fair point.. I may have overstated the reprehensibility somewhat.. but I still think it's a serious issue

one of the consequences of this seemingly increased acceptability of litigiousness is that it becomes more awkward/difficult to run races.. which affects all of us

as I mentioned above, if you mark a hole by spray painting on the road in advance of a race (which surely we're agreed makes it a bit safer?).. then you are making yourself liable for any accidents that might happen as a consequence of the hole

to me, this is unacceptable and rather unfortunate...

jinkypolly

joe50 wrote: »

as I mentioned above, if you mark a hole by spray painting on the road in advance of a race (which surely we're agreed makes it a bit safer?).. then you are making yourself liable for any accidents that might happen as a consequence of the hole

How so?

joe50

jinkypolly wrote: »

How so?

I'll admit I'm not certain of the ins and outs of it, but definitely for the races our club organise we've been advised against marking holes on the roads, as it entails some level of accountability for the hole in the result of an accident..

seamus

joe50 wrote: »

as I mentioned above, if you mark a hole by spray painting on the road in advance of a race (which surely we're agreed makes it a bit safer?).. then you are making yourself liable for any accidents that might happen as a consequence of the hole

That's strictly not true. You could argue that by virtue of being aware of the hole, then club has a responsibility to ensure that those involved in the race are adequately warned of it, otherwise they could be accused of negligence.

Marking the hole on the road (as is common practice) would seem to adequately cover this because you are doing the most that you can within your power to warn the riders of known dangers. Otherwise you could argue that a council putting out "loose chippings" signs is liable for accidents due to loose chippings, because they put a warning up.

You may be getting confused with the fact that if the club were to attempt to repair a pothole or put a plank over it or something, and someone crashed on the repair/plank, then the club would be liable.

Simply warning someone about a potential danger does not make you liable if the person subsequently falls foul of it. As per the test I post above, you cannot be held liable if you have not done anything to cause the injury.

Beasty

I suspect the main risk of marking holes is it p!sses the Council off as it's more difficult for them to ignore the issue. Is it not strictly illegal though to mark the road like that without the permission of the relevant authority?

joe50

seamus wrote: »

You may be getting confused with the fact that if the club were to attempt to repair a pothole or put a plank over it or something, and someone crashed on the repair/plank, then the club would be liable.

whilst I'll readily admit to being easily confused.. in this particular instance I don't think I am..

we weren't taking about filling in the holes, or putting planks anywhere near them... simply spray painting on the road with arrows pointing out the location of some of the holes...

we were advised not to, as we would make ourselves liable in some respect..

joe50

Beasty wrote: »

I suspect the main risk of marking holes is it p!sses the Council off as it's more difficult for them to ignore the issue. Is it not strictly illegal though to mark the road like that without the permission of the relevant authority?

well, like I said, I don't think it's a good thing.. I'd certainly prefer to race on roads where the holes were marked

(obviously I'd prefer to race on roads without holes, but you can't win them all )

I certainly think an element of this is due to the increased acceptance of litigiousness, but again, I may be wrong

I can by no means claim to be an expert

seamus

It's certainly illegal to make your own road markings, so perhaps this is the liability that is being mentioned. Councils are notoriously by-the-book about these things. If you mark the road, you may be forced to pay the cost of scraping and re-laying the road surface. No, really.

Apparently if you have the audacity to resurface the public road in front of your house to remove the potholes, the council will not only rip and and redo the surface using their own contractors (who may be the same contractors you used), but they will charge you for the pleasure.

wexandproud

I think in this case the op is right to sue. when you think of the nearly impossible high safety regulations imposed on farmers ,builders , shop and restaurant owners and with safety inspectors for everything, the local authorities have to take responsibility to make the roads fit for purpose.

greenmat

I would sue the Council. My wifes uncle had a very bad accident a good few years back while cycling to work in Dublin Port area, ended up in hospital for weeks over Christmas. He very successfully claimed against DCC because of a large pothole that was never repaired. Took pictures of it myself with a tape measure laid out beside it to indicate it's area and also one which showed it's depth. A week after the accident it was repaired to a high standard once they heard about possible claim. Took pic of repaired road too.

As for marking potholes on a race circuit, just do it, seen it at a few races last year and was a great help.

Beasty

Just to be clear, there are 2 aspecst of any "claim" - personal injury, which will normally be dealt with via the Personal Injuries Board, and compensation for damage to bike/equipment.

It's not necessary to get solicitors involved if you are simply going the PIB route, and if there's an acceptance of liability by the local authority they may simply pay compensation for damage to property based on esitmates for repair/replacement

In my particular case, the claim was initially dealt with by the sub-contractor's insurers and was only for personal injury. I tried the PIB route but they refused so I had to go down a more formal route. Once they were off the scene and I was dealing with the Council and it's insurers they eventually made an offer which was probably a great deal less than I could have successfully claimed through court proceddings, but as I've already said this was more about the principle than the amount of compensation for me

raher1

Hi
Just reading the threads.
I rammed into a car last week. No matter how hard I braked my car wouldn't stop. After crash I noticed the road was recently tarred and it was totally smooth no grip. Can I sue the council for causing the accident. I was forced to attempt liability to avoid a court case. I like to know, who is at fault, my car which the has four new tyres and perfect brakes or road with no grip.

Beasty

raher1 wrote: »

Hi
Just reading the threads.
I rammed into a car last week. No matter how hard I braked my car wouldn't stop. After crash I noticed the road was recently tarred and it was totally smooth no grip. Can I sue the council for causing the accident. I was forced to attempt liability to avoid a court case. I like to know, who is at fault, my car which the has four new tyres and perfect brakes or road with no grip.

Nothing to do with potholes, nothing to do with cycling, and legal advice cannot be sought or provided on Boards

Thread closed