Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Casualty
Crime & Legal
Six-figure settlement for widow of pothole death cyclistBroken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)

Six-figure settlement for widow of pothole death cyclist

N Yorkshire CC settles with Kate Uzzell whose husband Martyn was killed during Land’s End to John O’Groats ride
by Simon_MacMichael
Fri, Apr 10, 2015 10:01
8

The widow of a cyclist killed during a charity ride from Land’s End to John O’Groats after he was thrown from his bike into the path of a car when he hit a pothole has reached a six-figure settlement with the local authority responsible for maintaining the road.

Martyn Uzzell from Cleveden, Somerset, aged 51, was killed instantly in the incident on the A65 Settle Bypass at Giggleswick, North Yorkshire in June 2011.

A coroner’s inquest last year concluded that there was “no doubt whatsoever” that a 10cm pothole surrounding a drain cover was the cause of the fatal crash.

The victim’s wife Kate, to whom he had been married for more than 20 years, brought a civil action against North Yorkshire County Council, which had been notified of the defect by police five weeks before Mr Uzzell’s death, but took no action to repair it.

According to BBC News, the council has reached a settlement with Mrs Uzzell to avoid “prolonged involvement in further litigation.”

While the local authority said it "accepts no liability for the tragic death of Mr Uzzell", it acknowledged that the case was "a sensitive matter."

Following Mr Uzzell’s death, the Crown Prosecution Service decided it was unable to bring a criminal prosecution against the council in respect of its alleged failure to repair the pothole.

When she revealed in March last year that she was launching a civil action against the local authority, Mrs Uzzell said: “They had been warned, they had inspected and they still did nothing — it’s just appalling.

“[Suing the council] is not what I wanted to do.

“But I wanted there to be a prosecution and for them to stand up and be counted,” she added.

Martyn Uzzell
Compensation
Pothole
North Yorkshire County Council
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

8 comments

Avatar
peterben | 8 years ago
0 likes

Yes, or just cancel HS2, £50 billion at current price and £1 billion already spent on consultants. That's a lot of potholes.

Avatar
marcswales | 8 years ago
0 likes

The next time anyone uses http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ to report a hole, make sure that you also use http://road.cc/content/news/147922-six-figure-settlement-widow-pothole-d...
to show them the balance of the cost the need to consider.

Avatar
Airzound | 8 years ago
0 likes

Let's face it they have admitted liability by paying out because if they had continued to dispute liability they would have lost in court. Weasels. Those concerned at the council should lose their jobs, because of them some one has lost their life. To think they were notified about the hole, by police, and they STILL did nothing. Shocking.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 8 years ago
0 likes

I find it baffling that a council can only be held liable once a fault has been reported. If the first incident with a pothole proved to be fatal, when it might otherwise be reported, then they could get away with it. The way I see it, they should be responsible for sufficiently routine inspections and maintenance to keep this sort of problem at bay.

Avatar
badbobb replied to vonhelmet | 8 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

I find it baffling that a council can only be held liable once a fault has been reported. If the first incident with a pothole proved to be fatal, when it might otherwise be reported, then they could get away with it. The way I see it, they should be responsible for sufficiently routine inspections and maintenance to keep this sort of problem at bay.

10s of thousands of miles to check daily mmmmmmmm guess they could put up taxes to pay for it all, and close some schools and hospitals ? sounds fair

Avatar
lolol | 8 years ago
0 likes

I hope this sends a wake up call out to the negligent Councils outs there. The ones who think that cost savings outweigh the risks to road users

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to lolol | 8 years ago
0 likes
lolol wrote:

I hope this sends a wake up call out to the negligent Councils outs there. The ones who think that cost savings outweigh the risks to road users

Sadly, it probably wasn't sufficient to outweigh the cost of keeping the roads in the sort of condition where this casn't happen. That's much more than the odd six-figure sum. The compensation cash may also have come from a different budget - don't under estimate how irrationally bureaucratic structures can incentive people to think/act.

vonhelmet wrote:

The way I see it, they should be responsible for sufficiently routine inspections and maintenance to keep this sort of problem at bay.

That's a bit unfair - a balance has to be struck. Large numbers of potholes can appear overnight (e.g. after severe winter weather). Maybe inspections should be more frequent - but councils' roads budget are shrinking and (wrt to my previous comment) maintenance funding is being cut much harder than capital by central government (different departments). So money to rebuild roads is easier to come by than the money to look after them so they don't fall apart in the first place. Bonkers but true.

Avatar
balmybaldwin | 8 years ago
0 likes

Quite disappointed that this was settled out of court allowing the council to not admit liability.

Having said that it's a decent payout that hopefully will provide some comfort for the family

Latest Comments