The partner and two children of a cyclist who drowned in Bristol’s Floating Harbour are suing the city council for compensation of up to £1.5 million.
The family of a cyclist who drowned when he fell into the Floating Harbour in Bristol are suing the city’s council for up to £1.5 million in compensation.
Sean Philips, aged 40, died in March 2013 after reportedly losing control of his bike as he rode to work at the Aztec West business park, reports the Bristol Post.
There was speculation that the wheels of his bike may have become stuck in rail tracks that run along the harbourside.
Two people who saw him fall jumped into the water but were unable to save him.
Mr Philips, who had a prosthetic leg, had been heading towards the Prince Street Bridge when he fell into the water close to the MV Balmoral and the M Shed museum.
He left behind two children and his partner, Hayley Liddle, is suing the council, saying that there should have been a barrier on the harbour wall.
It is also alleged that warning signs were in the wrong location, were too small and could be easily overlooked, and that the council failed to conduct a risk assessment regarding the possibility of people falling in the water.
At a pre-trial hearing on Monday at the High Court in London, Judge Veronique Buehrlen QC revealed that damages were being sought of between £1.1 million and £1.5 million.
Describing the case as “a serious claim arising out of a serious tragedy,” the judge ruled that the family would be able to rely on expert testimony from an accident reconstruction engineer, saying it would “assist the court.”
The council had argued that the witness had gone beyond her remit by making remarks about waterside safety features elsewhere, and that she was unqualified to give evidence on issues such as risk assessment or whether the signage was adequate.
But the judge said the expert’s testimony would “assist the court” and opened the way for it to form part of the family’s case.
The case is unlikely to go to full trial until later this year, with the council now needing time to gather its own expert evidence.
In 2014, an inquest into Mr Philips’ death heard that concerns over train and crane tracks at the harbourside had been raised in a risk assessment carried out in 2003.
> Inquest into death of drowned Bristol cyclist hears council didn’t act on safety warnings
An independent risk assessment, conducted in 2012, recommended that safety barriers be installed, but the council was said to have rejected the idea.
42 thoughts on “Family of cyclist who drowned in Bristol harbour sue council for £1.5 million”
If anyone chooses to visit
If anyone chooses to visit the Post site to read their story, do not – I repeat: DO NOT! – read the comments below the line…
brooksby wrote:
If you’re going to say that then obviously everyone is going to read the comments. Silly thing to say.
fizrar6 wrote:
I know, but a trigger warning is generally still appropriate for the comments on any article in the Bristol Post which mentions cycling… We have some right Neanderthals here!
I thought those comments
I thought those comments weren’t too bad considering how toxic they usually are.
Oh shoot! I’ve just ignored Brooksby’s warning – can I sue him now?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Please don’t!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Have to say I tended to agree with the comments – I’m sorry he lost his life, but it was an accident and not the council’s fault.
LastBoyScout wrote:
Except that…
…which means the council at least has to explain itself, I’d think.
Especially as they’ve now – only *since* Mr Philips’ death – put a gate across there and said no cyclists should go along there (diversions around the back of the M Shed, so there are still tracks for you to get caught in and come off, but you won’t fall in the water…).
Family loses a bread winner
Family loses a bread winner due to corner cutting and negligence, least they deserve!
alansmurphy wrote:
I disagree, though it is a tragedy, but I don’t think they should be awarded that amount (not from tax payers pockets anyway).
That area is a known danger for cyclists and there have been clear signs there for as long as I can remember. Yes, the council could have done more and now have, which might count against them in court, but I think that cyclists should take care if they decide to cycle despite the signs.
If the accident had been caused by lack of maintenance, then I’d change my mind.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It does seem like an awful lot of money, but presumably that’s what they’ve been advised to ask for – more likely it will all be settled out of court for a far smaller amount.
I’d still like to hear the council’s explanation for ignoring the risk assessment, mind…
I used to walk along here
I used to walk along here every day when first moved to Bristol in 2010 and saw quite a few people get their front wheels stuck in the train tracks and go over the bars. The train track rails are a hazard, however even back in 2010 there were signs warning of this hazard, which to be fair was a straightforward and common-sense judgement anyway.
Now that cycling is no longer permitted in front of M-shed (there is a, frankly better, route around the back) you have a certain contingent kicking off about it on Bristol Cyclists facebook page because apparently it’s not legal or something.
gonedownhill wrote:
Like I said upthread: there are still tram rails/tracks around the back of the M Shed and you can still get a wheel caught in them and come off – the only difference is you’ll fall onto tarmac and get run over by a car instead of falling in the water..
brooksby wrote:
They’re not totally hazard free admittedly but they are partly filled in in the centre aren’t they – pretty sure they are no longer fit for a train to go down? Certainly better than the ones by Brunel’s buttery and round the front of M-shed which are several inches deep – you need to hit them at quite an angle to go over safely, which is difficult around all the pedestrians. Not much of a problem around the back.
I wrote to not only the
I wrote to not only the county highways but also the road safety officer pointing out the only viable route for my son to cycle to school was a 7-8% downhill on a 60mph road. That road was rutted to fuck and was too high a speed limit in any case.The alternate was to cycle illegally on the paths of the estate and then join a major through road at peak rush hour and an extra mile to boot or a muddy bridleway that at the time was not navigable by bike.
I didn’t use the route myself for some time, decided to meet junior at school, hit a crevasse of a ‘pothole’ that was hidden in shade froma low sun behind the trees. I was swerving initially to the centre dividing line to avoid a furry critter scurrying across the road.
End situation I busted my shoulder really badly, 15 years on it’s still fucked and pretty much ended my chances of playing competitive rugby ever again.
Local authority settled out of court and after all my costs(I ended up paying all my solicitors costs and physio out of my payout) I just about scraped £2k. I wish I’d gone elsewhere, proper ambulance chasers as my local solicitors were a disgrace and totally fecking useless. I had initially tried to settle matters with the LA directly pointing out what I had said about the condition of the road previously but they basically said piss off.
County pay out hefty £ M every year due to negligence in their maintaining the highway on top of the £££ in costs. Some of it would be massively cheaper to fix and avoid the potential outcomes and for some devastating heartache.
Even if there are signs they are duty bound to make it safe, there are very obvious reasons why.
They are still liable and I hope the family get the compensation they feel is just.
A sad event but if there were
A sad event but if there were warning signs I guess it’s buyer beware.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
if you can read them, if they’re in your language, if they’re in the correct place. I know, let’s not make it compulsory any more to have railings on stairs and balconies, just a sign somewhere. Caveat lector.
ConcordeCX wrote:
In the real world this things are costed against risk. It’s not about removing safety features that now comes as standard (your stairs for example) it’s about not being able to cover every eventuality of risk. Some stuff should really just be obvious.
Do we really need to get to the pack of nuts having a ‘warning, contains nuts’ sign on it type world? Then again I remember Aprilia putting something in their owners manual along the lines of ‘this motorcycle contains no edible parts’ so who knows.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Michel Lotito would disagree !
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
As peanuts are not actually nuts (they are legumes, part of the pea family) I would not expect a bag of them to contain nuts. Could be useful information if there is a chance that they do
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
No, but the Daily Mail website probably should.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
it’s better than that – it’s Warning may contain nuts.
Who said anything about removing things?
It’s the councils fault. They
It’s the councils fault. They should have drained the docks and filled them in with cotton wool.
What I’d like to know is his
What I’d like to know is his speed. It’s quite a way from railway line to water. The picture shows the closest part of the line to the water with railings. My niece cycled through there, over the railway lines, just five years old a two weeks into being able to ride a bike. There’s lines – take more care. Money grabbing, it stinks of money grabbing.
bmxboyx01 wrote:
Usually that section has loads of pedestrians, but I don’t know how busy it would be at 7am. I reckon a tumble at 10-15mph could have you sliding over the edge.
Money grabbing is a bit harsh as it’s not like they planned the whole thing. I wouldn’t want to be in their position, so I don’t begrudge them trying to get some cash out of it. There’s plenty of times that the council can be rubbish, but I don’t think they are particularly to blame here.
bmxboyx01 wrote:
Well that’s case fucking closed then, eh Columbo? Someone you know didn’t have exactly the same experience as someone you don’t know.
Trolling, it stinks of substandard trolling.
bmxboyx01 wrote:
Disgracefullly crass comment!
So if your mum or dad (when you as a child) or partner had died as a direct conseqence of negligence to make safe an area that was highlighted not just once but at least twice and the financial burden/loss of income was extensive and going have a huge effect on your family life forever not to mention the emotional distress and grief that comes with losing a lost one you’d just sit back and say fuck it, I’m not taking a penny in recompense and it was their own fault entirely and do nothing?
If you say you wouldn’t then I would call you a liar.
What really concerns me about
What really concerns me about this, if the family are able to successfully sue Bristol Council over this – I.e. Bristol Council is deemed responsible, I am very concerned Bristol Council would react by banning cycling outright in areas they are responsible for.
If you are worried about
If you are worried about extensive loss of income with regards to a key family member (particularly the main breadwinner) being unexpectedly killed there is such a thing as life insurance. Or could they not be assed to pay the premiums? Don’t blame them actually, cos you can always find a scum of the earth proffessional….sorry …..i mean respectable lawyer/solicitor who will take on the most tenous of cases in the search of a nice big fat paycheque. Generally the legal ace doesnt have much to lose (if anything), and a huge jackpot to win….whats not to like? Of course, mention the words ‘the council’ in the preceedings and the visions of all that tax payers free cash waiting to be spent is just too much for any remotely competant vulture…sorry i mean attorney…. to resist……its pound signs in the eyes time!! …kerrching…..BTW, while i am here, i have a tip for cyclists…if riding a bike next to open water take extra care and preferrably dont do it…..you may fall in and this in turn may not be advantageous to your wellbeing (sorry if this seems apparent to most people of sound mind…its because it F@cking is!!!!!)
the nutcracker wrote:
oh dear, did you lose a negligence case?
the nutcracker wrote:
You will find that councils take out insurance for things like fire, employer liability, professional negligence and third party liability. So any payout will be from the insurer not the tax payer.
I guess you missed the bit in the article where the council were advised to put up railings.
the nutcracker wrote:
They lost a bread-winner with 25+ more years of working so the figure is not that high when you consider that £1m of it could easily be loss of earnings from the victim which only leaves £0.5m for negligence, trauma and loss of earnings (due to initial impact and ongoing childcare issues) from remaining parent.
The onus should not be on them to have life insurance, they may not have been able to afford it rather than “not be assed”. It is also possible that they did have life insurance but only covered serious illness and not accidental death or some other caveat that meant no payout.
As for things being apparent to most people, I tend to find that they are only apparent from education or personal experience. If you have not had the experience and there are not the education available (signs in this case) then it is not apparent.
Things I did not know were slippy/icy in cold weather before experiencing for myself:
Road Paint
Tram Tracks
Pathways under Bridges
Tree Leaves
I have noticed on my commute home that there are now signs where the canal path goes under the bridge warning of potential risk of ice, wish that had always been there.
Also, as mentioned, this will not come out of the tax payers money as there will be liability insurance to cover such things.
ClubSmed wrote:
Quite.
I say this only as I think most people are unaware – the figures quote will be almost entirely for financial loses. As you say, usually loss of earnings, and perhaps a finanical valuation of the time that person would have spent contributing to the family e.g. childcare, taxi runs for the children, DIY etc…
The trauma of the death however? There’s a fixed bereavement award for the negligent death of a spouse/civil partner. That fixed award is £12,980.
The only other cateogry who can claim that award are the parents of a child under 18. There’s only one payment of £12,980, so they have to split it between them. Unless of course they weren’t married, and then Mum gets the payment, and Dad gets £0. (seriously, and yes, it is 2018….)
So, if your child dies a day after their 18th birthday, that doesn’t count.
If a parent dies, any children are not entitled to the bereavement award no matter how old they are. If they are under 18, they might get a token amount, but it would be usually under £5k.
The compensation culture is not always what it’s made out to be in the media…
I’ll try and keep this short
I’ll try and keep this short and on the points others haven’t responded to.
Virtually every case is dealt with on a conditional fee agreement, the condition being they don’t get paid if they don’t win ( i.e. “no win, no fee”). So the “scum of the earth” lawyer potentially works for years on a case but then gets paid £0. Why would they do that on the “most tenuous of cases”, unless they’re idiots?
Your reference to “huge jackpot to win” implies you think they get a simple percentage of the compensation. That’s not how it works in England and Wales. Generally they get paid for their time, and Defendants can object if they think too much or unreasonable work was done. Don’t get me wrong, this can add up to large amounts of money, but at least in theory that is because a lot work was done.
the nutcracker wrote:
If you are worried about future generations, please do not procreate.
Vile creature!
Life insurance is gambling
Life insurance is gambling and why should you have to take life insurance anyway?
I cancelled my life insurance a year after buying my property over 20 years ago, I don’t have contents nor insurance for my bikes.
Should I be expected to get insurance or be blamed for not having it on the basis that the local authority might negligently burn my house down, or would it be more appropriate to make a big claim from them for my losses?
Let me think, there was some recent tragic event were people were killed and lost everything due to negligence of others (againa a local authority), I bet you were one of the first to start gobbing off to tell those families without life/contents insurance they should have had it.
get fooked.
So… A portal between here
So… A portal between here and the Bristol Post’s BTL seems to have opened, letting their best mouth-breathers in.
Has someone been insulting the Clifton suspension bridge backwards in a mirror or something?
davel wrote:
Perhaps, hopefully some of road.ccs might migrate over there – that would worth seeing 🙂
davel wrote:
You have to say “George Ferguson” or “Marvin Rees” into a mirror three times, I think
Two previous recommendations
Two previous recommendations to take action ignored, and instead merely a warning sign put up… The council will be paying out on this.
As already beautifully posted, simply putting a sign up is not an adequate safety response. The danger has been identified (twice) and ignored twice.
Its like there being a massive pot hole in a road, on a descent, under dense tree cover. Somewhere maybe 100m before, maybe 5m, maybe 200m there is a sign saying ‘beware of broken surfaces’. Would anyone suggest that was a sufficient response to an obvious danger? I’d hope not.
They’re not exactly new, and
They’re not exactly new, and neither are the docks. They are therefore well-known and clearly not suitable for cycling without great care. This is in contrast to tramlines installed in a road. It is therefore akin to saying that a flight of steps is a hazard to cyclists and a more amenable ramp should be provided in its stead.
On the same barking basis you should argue that the roads are full of cars that are a hazard to cylists and that they should be removed – after all, the cycles were there before the cars. The hazard that they present is clear to even the most jaundiced observer. If said observer is not convinced, a straight arm shove into the road should do the trick. Or push him into the dock.
Very sad, but not everything is someone else’s fault. Misadventure, perhaps.
nniff wrote:
Well, now you mention it…
nniff wrote:
Now you’re talking sense. Imagine the huge savings to “THE TAXPAYER” if all the feckless, reckless drains on the state coffers that can’t currently be arsed to pay the full costs of their mode of transport were made to get out of their coffins or pay the full whack?
That, or as you suggest, they get pushed into the stream of their fellow dolts.