The High Court found Wexford Borough Council liable for a motorbike crash on an icy road in November 2009, accepting that the accident happened as the plaintiff described and was reasonably foreseeable. It found no contributory negligence and said he was entitled to damages agreed between the parties.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2018, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon dealt with liability and causation only. The value of the claim had been agreed, subject to the court deciding liability. The judgment does not state the amount of damages.
The plaintiff claimed that his motorbike skidded on ice after rainwater pooled and froze near road gullies on Liam Mellows Road in Wexford. He alleged nuisance, negligence and breaches of duty, including statutory duty and the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. The council denied liability and put him to proof that a defective gully caused the hazard and that it caused his fall and injuries. It also pleaded contributory negligence.
The plaintiff said the crash happened on his regular route to work on a wet and frosty morning. He testified that the road was icy, his bike swivelled as he turned, and he injured his shoulder. He said he was off work for 17 to 18 weeks. The judgment records that no fractures were found.
A resident, Walter Cogley, described a history of water pooling and blocked gullies, and said he had complained to the council. He saw the plaintiff being picked up from the road and moved the bike into his driveway. Engineers and council witnesses gave evidence about drainage works, maintenance and the gullies. The plaintiff’s engineer acknowledged there was no ponding on the day of his 2017 inspection. A drainage contractor said he had cleaned the industrial estate 11 days before the crash, but the court noted he did not say he had cleaned the road where it happened.
The council argued that the plaintiff skidded on an icy road and had not reached the area of the gullies. It also argued that he knew water pooled in the area. The plaintiff’s submissions included an argument that the council was strictly liable for a breach of statutory duty; that was a submission, rather than a separate finding expressly set out in the judgment.
The judge found the plaintiff careful and truthful and accepted John Furlong’s evidence. On the balance of probabilities, the accident was reasonably foreseeable and happened as described by the plaintiff and his witnesses. The court rejected contributory negligence and held the plaintiff entitled to the agreed damages and costs. The judgment does not quantify either award.