A cyclist whose right leg was shattered when she hit a pothole has lost her High Court case in which she was suing a council in Yorkshire for negligence.
Miranda Walsh was riding with her partner in Huddersfield in 2013 when she crashed as she approached the New Hey Road roundabout.
The Huddersfield Examiner reports that last year, Judge Neil Davey QC ruled that Kirklees Council was not to blame for her injuries.
Her lawyers had said that the pothole was “the size of a dinner plate,” measuring 6 by 8 inches and more than an inch and a half deep.
The judge, however, said that photographs of the pothole taken by a council engineer were “worse than useless” and there was no way of establishing the dimensions.
Ms Walsh had claimed that the council had been negligent in failing in its duty to keep the highway safe and that the pothole was “a real source of danger to road users.”
She appealed the decision, with her barrister, Ian Pennock, saying that the original decision was “simply wrong,” pointing out that one photo included a tape measure which showed the size of the pothole.
Mr Justice Dingemans ruled that while the photograph appeared at first sight to show the dimensions, looking more closely he agreed with Judge Davey that there was “not enough reliable evidence” to establish that it posed a real danger, and dismissed the appeal.
The decision has been reported at a time when Cycling UK is running its inaugural Pothole Watch Week.
As we reported on Sunday, the charity says that pothole-related claims against local authorities by cyclists result in awards and legal fees 25 those of claims brought by motorists, due to the greater risk of injury.
Commenting on this case, Duncan Dollimore, Head of Campaigns at Cycling UK, said: “It’s impossible to know exactly what evidence was available to the court simply from the press reports, but this case demonstrates the importance of taking photographs of any pothole or road defect which include reference to some form of scale, including the depth of the hole.
“The press report mentions a depth of 1.6 inches, but it’s unclear whether that was a relevant factor.
“New government guidance issued in 2016 set a depth of 40mm as the level at which potholes should be investigated, but not automatically repaired.
“Sadly, we all know that the location of the pothole can be as important as its size, something which highways authorities and the courts don’t always seem to realise, so it’s also vital to take photographs showing the road approaching the pothole to put the location in context.”
12 thoughts on “Cyclist whose leg was shattered in pothole crash loses appeal”
Her injuries are proof that
Her injuries are proof that the pothole is dangerous. How is this not self-evident?
Sriracha wrote:
Her injuries are evidence that she was involved in an incident not evidence of how or where the incident happened and not evidence of the depth of a pothole
“..this case demonstrates the
“..this case demonstrates the importance of taking photographs of any pothole or road defect..”
Surely it demonstrates the effectiveness of literally covering up evidence as quickly as possible.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Exactly!
My 15 year old daughter hit a pothole 3 years ago and the resulting accident was bad enough for her to need to go to hospital by ambulance. The council claimed that the pothole was not significant enough according to the definition of when they need to repair it and so rejected our claim.
However, on the advice of the Police, I went back to scene 2 days later to take clear photographs including a tape measure to define size & depth. Because of this evidence the council subsequently admitted liability without going to court.
My daughter got compensation but has permanent scars from the accident. However what really pi$$es me off is that I use the same road every day on the way to work and the pothole is currently larger than it was at the time of her accident (+3yrs)!
This is a perennial issue the same potholes keep reappearing because they are patched and are not fixed properly. Surely the cost of repeated patches is more than the cost a single proper repair.
Pheasant Plucker wrote:
I complained about one like that – the pothole was now bigger than some parts of the purple spray that had been put on to mark the original hole for repair. I think it was repaired eventually.
Pheasant Plucker wrote:
Exactly!
My 15 year old daughter hit a pothole 3 years ago and the resulting accident was bad enough for her to need to go to hospital by ambulance. The council claimed that the pothole was not significant enough according to the definition of when they need to repair it and so rejected our claim.
However, on the advice of the Police, I went back to scene 2 days later to take clear photographs including a tape measure to define size & depth. Because of this evidence the council subsequently admitted liability without going to court.
My daughter got compensation but has permanent scars from the accident. However what really pi$$es me off is that I use the same road every day on the way to work and the pothole is currently larger than it was at the time of her accident (+3yrs)!
This is a perennial issue the same potholes keep reappearing because they are patched and are not fixed properly. Surely the cost of repeated patches is more than the cost a single proper repair.
— Mungecrundle
You don’t mention if you have reported it. If you haven’t bear in mind that some council’s don’t accept reports through third party websites as a result of the poor standard of some reports, so try phoning the council direct
Remember kids, next time you
Remember kids, next time you smash yourself to bits hitting a pothole make sure you resist the urge to immediately pick your front teeth up and instead of calling an ambulance, wipe that blood away from your borken mobile and snap a selfie with that pesky pothole.
Gourmet Shot wrote:
And kids, don’t forget to take that tape measure!
I am pestering Reading
I am pestering Reading Council to repair the road surface on a roundabout on my way to work, due to an awkward series of potholes that you have to pick your way through.
First reported it about 3 years ago – last response from them was they are monitoring the situation but the potholes are still not big enough to trigger an intervention!
One the other hand, one I
One the other hand, one I reported near Henley this time last year was fixed almost overnight.
Could it have had something to do with the comment I added in the report that a sponsored charity cycle ride with several hundred riders would be going up that road the following weekend?
So, if you want a pothole fixed, organise a charity bike ride along that road!
Not sure I’m understanding. *
Not sure I’m understanding. *
“The judge, however, said that photographs of the pothole taken by a council engineer were “worse than useless” and there was no way of establishing the dimensions.”
Hold on. The defendent (yup, that’s the defendant, on a charge, in a court of law) took incompetent photographs of their incompetence? And because they took incompetent photographs of their incomeptence, the demonstrably incompetent defendant is “not to blame”? WTAF.
* that needs a sarcasm/cycnical smiley. Aye – I do understand. Exactly.
Please report all potholes
Please report all potholes though. I came off on a sunken manhole cover a few years ago. Luckily no serious injuries though I did land on my phone and smash that.
I complained to the council who complained to a utility company who fixed the road in a couple of days. Great, I thought, now what about my smashed phone, ripped shirt and bar tape?
The council dismissed the claim on the basis they had a record of road inspections taking place 2 weeks before and finding no defects. This was nonsense. I commute it most days and it had been getting worse for months but I’d remembered to cycle around it most days except for the one day I forgot.
They also said I should have been cycling nearer the curb. Oh how I laughed.