Council cleared of liability after “negligent” cyclist crashed into grass verge on narrow path, breaking neck

A High Court judge has found a council not liable for the injuries sustained by a cyclist who crashed into a hole on a grass verge next to a narrow path while attempting to overtake a runner, breaking his neck and resulting in the loss of his job.

Vikram Sachdeva KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found that Hertfordshire County Council had taken reasonable care, under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980, to ensure the section where the cyclist sustained his injuries was not dangerous, while claiming that the rider was “negligent” and “contributed to the accident” by failing to assess the route ahead for defects and by cycling at what he described as an “excessive” speed of 10mph.

The incident took place in April 2020 on a path separated from the busy A10 road near Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, by a grass verge, which began marked as a shared cycle and pedestrian path, LocalGovernmentLawyer reports.

However, just north of the Paul Cully walking and cycling bridge, opened in 2010, the path narrows from 2.5 metres-wide to around one metre, with no signs denoting any change in the path’s shared-use status.

While returning home on the path, the claimant began to overtake a runner, turning sharply onto the grass verge and colliding with a hole, throwing him from his bike. The cyclist suffered a complex fracture of the second vertebra, which saw him forced to leave his job as a social worker, this week’s hearing heard.

> “Car-centric” council missed massive pothole that killed 84-year-old cyclist because “primary focus” was to identify “dangers to cars”, not bikes

The claimant told the hearing that Hertfordshire County Council had breached Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 – concerning the duty to maintain highways at public expense – and a duty of care owed at common law.

He claimed that Section 41 was breached because the county council had failed to heed the “obvious” risk posed to the path’s users and that its narrow width at that point meant that interactions between pedestrians and cyclists were inevitable. He also argued that it was clear that some users would have to move onto the verge to let others pass and, because the hole was located only 0.7m from the path, it should have been identified during routine inspections.

Since the path south of the bridge was clearly marked as dual use, a sign should have indicated that this status came to a stop where the path narrowed, the cyclist added.

“This was a large hole and he did not see or avoid it”

After hearing evidence from highways repair contractors and council staff, Judge Sachdeva found that no significant hole had been present on the verge during the last routine inspection before the incident, in February 2020, and that the hole – which he said could “vary in size over short periods of time” – was likely created in the interim by burrowing animals.

“I find that, on the specific facts of this case, that stepping onto or cycling onto the grass verge in this case is a normal use of the highway, and that the public have a reasonable expectation that substantial holes in such a verge would be repaired within a reasonable period of their discovery,” the judge said.

“Such substantial holes constitute the sort of danger which an authority may reasonably be expected to guard against. I do not accept that this finding would place an unrealistic or disproportionate burden on highway authorities’ limited budgets.”

> Council pays cyclist five-figure settlement over "harrowing" pothole crash

However, Mr Sachdeva also noted that the council’s policy of biannual walked inspections of the path and verge “is accepted as being in accordance with national guidance and lawful”.

By arguing that there was no reason to believe the February inspection was “anything other than competent”, the judge ruled that the council was not liable under Section 41 of the Highways Act. He also accepted that nothing required the council to have signified the changing status of the path north of the Paul Cully bridge, since the absence of any signs “implies that the path is not shared use. There is therefore no liability in negligence in this case.”

> Cyclist hit by truck driver has compensation cut after judge says lack of helmet contributed to injuries

Describing the cyclist’s actions at the time of the crash, the judge added that had he found for the claimant, he would nevertheless have reduced his damages by 33 percent for contributory negligence.

“In my judgment the speed of 10mph was excessive for the conditions, and the sharp right-hand turn was a manoeuvre which [the claimant] should have avoided because it made it difficult for him to see the route ahead,” he said.

“Given that he was entering a verge where it might be more difficult to see and avoid unevenness, he ought to have taken more care to give himself time to look out for defects and to be able to avoid them.

“This was a large hole and he did not see or avoid it. His actions were negligent and contributed to the accident.”