Cyclist appeal succeeds after verge injury: Karpasitis v Herts CC

Last year the High Court handed down a judgement in the case of Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council dismissing a cyclist claim for compensation for injuries sustained when the front wheel of his bike went into a whole hidden in the grass verge.

In April 2020, while cycling along a familiar route on a footpath beside the A10 near Cheshunt, Mr. Karpasitis encountered a jogger travelling in the same direction. To overtake safely, he moved onto the adjacent grass verge. As he did so, the front wheel of his bike dropped into a concealed hole, throwing him from his bicycle and causing a fractured vertebra. The injury was severe enough to prevent him from continuing his work as a social worker. A passing motorist later described the hole as "very deep." It was deep enough to reach knee-heigh and "at least a few feet wide." Despite its size, the hole was "quite inconspicuous" and "would not have been visible from the path or even when standing directly on the grassy verge."

The court decided to deal with the issue of liability separately from value. Mr. Karpasitis alleged the Council were liable because of:

i) A breach of s41 Highways Act 1980

ii) A breach of a duty of care owed at common law.

Section 41(1) of the Highways Act, 1980 requires “The authority who are for the time being the Highway Authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense are under a duty … to maintain the highway.”

The duty to maintain under the Highways Act requires the Highway Authority to ensure that the highway is safe for users who are using it in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable. For liability to arise, a defect must present a real danger. The highway, including roads and paths, must be safe for those entitled to use it, but there is no obligation to repair every minor imperfection. The standard is not one of perfection; the surface does not need to be maintained to the level of a bowling green. Requiring repairs for every small hole or depression would place an unreasonable financial burden on the authority.

While grass verges form part of the highway, a different maintenance standard typically applies. In King Lifting Ltd v Oxfordshire CC [2016] EWHC 1767 (QB), the court held that the primary purpose of verges is to support the carriageway, not to act as a safety zone for vehicles or other users.

Section 58(1) of the Act provides a defence if the Highway Authority can prove it has “taken such care as in all the circumstances is reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic.”

The Defendants called evidence confirming the grass had been cut on the verge a few weeks earlier. The grass cutters were instructed to report any dangerous holes. None had been reported and none had been seen; if they had been reported action would have been taken. They inspected the path every 6 months and accepted the inspection included the grass verge. It was last inspected a few months before February 2020. The inspector said he would not have missed such an obvious hole. Had he seen it he would have made a request to “make safe with appropriate footplate". If the hole had been at a location with heavy footfall, he would have requested a 2-hour repair and called the depot to send someone out to complete the repair as soon as possible.

Both parties called experts. There was a suggestion the hole could have been caused when a tree had been removed or possibly by rodents. The Claimants expert was of the view the grasscutters could have easily missed the whole and suggested the highway inspector may have failed to do their job properly.

The Defendants expert was of the view it was not unusual for the grass verge to be left unmaintained as the verge was rarely intended to be used as a route. In any event the hole had probably developed between the inspection in February and the accident in April, when the ground simply collapsed due to rodent activity.

The issue as to whether Mr Karpasitis should have been cycling on what the Defendants argued was essentially a footpath. The defendants withdrew their argument he was riding illegally, and the court found the following:

• The Defendants knew the path was used by cyclists and it was foreseeable a cyclist and a pedestrian may use the grass verge for passage.

• The verge was dangerous but did not require urgent repair but needed to be repaired within a reasonable period of its discovery.

If a "No cycling" sign had been erected the Claimant would not have attempted to cycle on the footway and the accident would not have occurred.

 Accordingly, causation in respect of both the statutory and common law claims is made out. However, the court went on to find that the hole was probably not present February 2020, the inspection was competent, and the Defendant has a s58 defence and is not liable under s41 Highways Act 1980.

Under the Common Law the court found that, the signage about whether the path was a shared cycle path/footway was confusing, there were no signs requiring cyclists to dismount north of the bridge, a footway remains a footway unless a sign authorises cycling and the reduction in the width of the path implies a change from a shared way to a footway.

 Accordingly, there was no liability in negligence. Had there been the Claimant would have had his award reduced by 33% for contributory negligence.

The court concluded, a prudent cyclist would ensure that he rides in such a way that he can see and react to the road ahead. 10mph was excessive for the conditions, and the sharp right-hand turn was a manoeuvre which Mr. Karpasitis should have avoided because it made it difficult for him to see the route ahead.

 Mr Karpasitis appealed to the court of appeal. In June 2025 the court overturned the decision concluding that

Judge should have treated an assertion in a witness statement from the retired inspector, who refused to attend court because he had retired as manifestly incredible given the GPS data form his vehicle suggested he had driven his vehicle along the relevant road for about ten minutes, during which he had only stopped once for three minutes, no walked inspection had been carried out.

The judge ought to have held that the local authority had failed to establish their statutory defence under s58, therefore the Claimant succeeded.

Generally, roads in town centres and A roads should be inspected every month. B roads every 6 months and other minor roads, residential streets, C roads, every 12 months. If a defect has been reported and not repaired within a reasonable time, liability can arise.

The timing for carrying out a repair will depend on the size, depth and how dangerous the defect is deemed to be. The Damage Management Approach (DMA) provides:

• Category 1 Defects (2 hours)

• Category 2 Defects

• Category 2, High Priority (2 hours)

• Category 2, Medium Priority (5 working days)

• Category 2, Low Priority (20 working days)

How Forbes Solicitors Can Help You

 Our expert no win, no fee solicitors will discuss your personal injury claim with you and ascertain whether you have a viable claim and a strong chance of success. We offer services nationwide. We can offer consultations by telephone or video call, or in any of our branches across the UK. Our no-win, no-fee solicitors will focus on recovering maximum compensation for your injuries quickly.

If you have experienced an injury at work or need legal guidance, our team is here to help. For more information or to discuss your case, contact our Personal Injury division.