Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

burst tyres in a pothole...any comeback?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    IANAL !!

    Good news, bad news.

    Here is S. 60 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. http://193.178.1.79/1961/en/act/pub/0041/sec0060.html

    Liability of road authority for failure to maintain public road.

    60.—(1) A road authority shall be liable for damage caused as a result of their failure to maintain adequately a public road.

    [GA] (2) In proceedings under this section, it shall be a defence for the road authority to prove that—

    [GA] ( a ) they had given sufficient warning that the road was a danger to traffic, or

    [GA] ( b ) they had taken reasonable precautions to secure that the road was not a danger to traffic, or

    [GA] ( c ) they had not a reasonable opportunity to give such warning or take such precautions, or

    [GA] ( d ) the damage resulted from a wrong committed by any person other than the road authority.

    [GA] (3) In determining whether a road was adequately maintained, regard shall be had in particular to—

    [GA] ( a ) the construction of the road and the standard of maintenance appropriate to a road of such construction,

    [GA] ( b ) the traffic using the road,

    [GA] ( c ) the condition in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the road.

    [GA] (4) In determining whether a road authority had a reasonable opportunity to give warning that a road was a danger to traffic or had taken reasonable precautions to secure that a road was not such a danger, regard shall be had to the standard of supervision reasonable for a road of such character.

    [GA] (5) In this section—

    [GA] "road authority" means the council of a county, the corporation of a county or other borough and the council of an urban district;

    [GA] "public road" means a road the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority and includes any bridge, pipe, arch, gulley, footway, pavement, fence, railing or wall which forms part of such road and which it is the responsibility of the road authority to maintain.

    [GA] (6) This section shall not apply to damage arising from an event which occurred before the coming into operation of this section.

    [GA] (7) This section shall come into operation on such day, not earlier than the 1st day of April, 1967, as may be fixed therefor by order made by the Government.




    The bad news is that as far as I know S. 60 was never enacted. So, if S 60. was never enacted the local authority is not liable for failure to repair. Ergo, their offer seems reasonable.

    The rationale is this. You can be negligent in two ways namely misfeasance or non-feasance. The first means doing something wrong. The second means doing something wrong by doing nothing. They are like sins of commission or omission.

    Failure to maintain a road is a sin of omission and they are not liable for that.

    If they actually created a danger in the road that would be a positive act of negligence e.g. digging a trench improperly and back filling it inadequately.

    Before doing anything furter you might try contacting the claims department of Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances (http://www.ipb.ie) and ask them if local authorities are liable for failure to maintain a road. I would like to hear what they say.

    Cheers for the info Nuts, but you DID see the part where they're gonna give me most of the money i shelled out didn't ya!! ??:p


  • Options
    #33
    Katie_Kiss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭Katie_Kiss


    word of warning - if u think that little hole is bad - DONT COME TO DONEGAL.

    i broke an 18'' rim on dun na gnalls roads and nearly took the front bumper off and all.

    the rim couldnt even be welded fixed - the set of 18's nearly cost me 2k, had to get a set of 17's and now i drive at 2mph and they still manage to get mangled!


  • Options
    #34
    dgosul
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭dgosul


    My sister ruined her alloy,down in Kerry in a pot hole, so she took a pic of the hole & sent the council a letter from her solicitor & they ended up paying for her new alloy.


  • Options
    #35
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Cheers for the info Nuts, but you DID see the part where they're gonna give me most of the money i shelled out didn't ya!! ??:p

    I certainly did !!

    I was just wondering why they were not offering you the amount of your loss. I was wondering if they were going to give you the non-feasance line then if you pushed for the full amount. Maybe they are taking off something for wear and tear.

    If you are satisfied with the offer bite their hands and get the cheque. Try pushing them a bit though to see if you can get them up a bit on their offer


Advertisement