claim to the council for road accident

InsideInsurance

There was a case that is often used in liability training. The councils subcontractors were instructed to narrow the pavement to widen the road by a few extra feet. The instruction to the contractors was to do this an naturally relocate the 9 street lights that were on the edge of the pavement to the edge of the new narrower pavement.

Unfortunately there were actually 10 street lights and not 9 and the contractors were jobs worth and basically left the lamppost about 3 foot into the road and just tarmaced around it etc.

The claimant was driving up the road a few days later and drove into the lamp post that was in the middle of the road. In this case the claimant was found 80% liable for the accident (they hit a static object after all) and the council 20% liable as they have a heightened duty of care and it doesnt take a H&S expert or extensive risk assessment to know you dont leave a lamp post in the middle of the road.

Based on the circumstances as you describe them. You hit a static object that was there to be seen and avoided. A deformed kerb is clearly no way near the level of negligence as leaving a 12' concrete pole in the road and so whilst it may be worth a punt you are unlikely to get anywhere

ThumbRemote

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Based on the circumstances as you describe them. You hit a static object that was there to be seen and avoided. A deformed kerb is clearly no way near the level of negligence as leaving a 12' concrete pole in the road and so whilst it may be worth a punt you are unlikely to get anywhere

But a street light is much easier to see and avoid than a kerb, so given that logic the blame may lie less with the driver, not more...

InsideInsurance

It was the sheer stupidity of leaving a lamp post in the middle of the road that put any liability on to the council at all.

unholyangel

But you dont expect to find a streetlight in the road. I would hope that people expect to find a kerb where the road meets the pavement.

OP, I am sorry for your accident but I really dont think the council are liable. I've seen kerbs that were only 1" higher than the road, i've seen kerbs that are 9" higher than the road.

Unless perhaps there is some regulation that states a kerb must be no higher than x height and the kerb in question is higher than that?

JustForThisOne

very interesting thanx
UnHolyAngel
the curb is not 1" higher than the norm, it is at least 30cm plus there is a grove between the curb and the tarmac, the slabs are pushed up and outward and protrude into the road.
Would a photo help? Am I allow to post photo on this site?
I am not trying to make a quick buck, but I am also determined to parsue it if there is a chance, more matter of principle as of lately I seem to attract all sort of misfortune for a better word. I will open another thread still in this section of the forum. I am very impressed with the knowledge of the answers, thanx

JustForThisOne

If I understand correctly ... do I have to prove that it as impossible to see it and there should have been a road warning?
As mentioned before there was some work done further along and they patched nearby they did not fix that curb

somethingcorporate

How was it impossible to see if it is a foot higher than the rest of the curb?

Photos would be really useful to help understand this (and of course your case against the council!).

bris

Is there a regulation height for kerbs? Even if there was your not supposed to cross them, that's the pedestrian side. MY god you mention a school, did you think of the children, what if one had been waiting at the kerb like they are supposed to and you come along and try to cross the kerb to park. Think of the children the next time.

arcon5

JustForThisOne wrote: »

If I understand correctly ... do I have to prove that it as impossible to see it and there should have been a road warning?
As mentioned before there was some work done further along and they patched nearby they did not fix that curb

I'm not sure about proving it's impossible to see tbh - after all when driving we have blind spots - yet this isn't a valid defense for causing an RTA when colliding with a vehicle in it.

I'm not sure how running in to a curb is the councils fault!

Have you seen how close some parents and children stand to the side of the road? :eek:

Looksguywalker

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm not sure about proving it's impossible to see tbh - after all when driving we have blind spots - yet this isn't a valid defense for causing an RTA when colliding with a vehicle in it.

I'm not sure how running in to a curb is the councils fault!

Have you seen how close some parents and children stand to the side of the road? :eek:

...or with a pram half on the pavement and the other half on the road.