The High Court found Tipperary County Council and Roadstone Wood Limited jointly and severally liable for injuries suffered by a cyclist who fell on the N24 at Ballinaraha, Kilsheelan, near Clonmel. It awarded him €62,000 in general damages and €2,153.85 in agreed special damages, a total of €64,153.85.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2019, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon found that the bitumen sealant used in road repairs was too wide and lacked slip-resistant grit. The court concluded that both defendants were negligent and that their negligence caused the accident. The judgment does not apportion liability between them.
The plaintiff, Joseph Kearney, said he fell while cycling with the Carrick Wheelers on 26 December. He alleged that excessive sealant created a hazard. He suffered a compression fracture to his T8 vertebra and described severe pain and disability during his recovery. The court accepted his evidence that heavy manual work and lifting continued to cause difficulty, while noting that his medical prognosis was positive and he had returned to most day-to-day activities.
An engineer called for the plaintiff said the repair’s bitumen strip was as much as 150mm wide, compared with a 40mm maximum in the guidance he cited, and that it had not been gritted to provide grip. The court noted there was no real dispute between the engineers that the sealant did not comply with the NRA specifications described in the judgment. Roadstone’s contracts manager accepted that the bitumen was too wide and lacked slip-resistant chips; he also acknowledged under cross-examination that the company had not complied with its contract specifications.
The council engineer described problems with the original road works and subsequent repairs. The court found that Roadstone carried out remedial work without ensuring it met the required standard. It also found the council negligent, concluding that it could reasonably have foreseen the risk from the defective patching and was aware of a similar accident on the road.
The judgment records the defendants’ submissions disputing causative negligence and discussing the contractor’s insurance and the council’s role in agreeing and accepting the works. The court’s finding was that both defendants were liable. It did not make a separate finding about insurance coverage in the damages order.