Construction firm liable over unsafe cycle bollard

In the case of Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction & Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB), Her Honour Judge Tucker considered whether the Defendant had discharged their liability after a Claimant had cycled into the base of a vandalised bollard that had been placed by the Defendant in order to create a two-way cycle lane. This followed a serious and significant injury to the Claimant’s left elbow. The solicitors firm handling the matter for the Claimant was Osbornes Law.

Facts of the case

The accident occurred on September 5, 2019 when the claimant was cycling home from work as they travelled along the cycle lane on Pitfield Street, London which was located next to a construction site. The construction site in question was operated by the defendant. A section of the site required part of the street to be closed to motorised vehicles. They adopted a different layout of the cycle route that was already established on the road. The new layout of the cycle route meant a two-way cycle lane was created on one carriageway of road.

As the claimant was utilising the constructed cycle path, his bike collided with the base of a traffic bollard which was on the road and from which the cylinder wand had been removed. The collision with this bollard caused the claimant to fall from his bicycle and sustain an injury to his elbow.

Following the accident the claimant was taken to hospital by the emergency services. The claimant asserted that the accident was caused due to the defendant’s negligence or due to the nuisance created by the defendant on the highway. The claimant contended that his bicycle collided with the base of the traffic bollard which was on the road and from which the corresponding cylinder wand had been removed, leaving the base as an unmarked hazard on the road that was not clearly visible.

The defendant denied any negligence and denied causing any nuisance. The defendant further denied that even if the claimant had collided with the base of the bollard placed by them (or in the alternative their contractors), that no liability could be placed on them. It was argued that the configuration of the traffic management system had been implemented on the advice of a specialist (Amber Langis) and that the implementation was also in accordance with what was stipulated by London Borough of Hackney Council as well as Transport for London. 

The defendant further asserted that it complied with the 2013 Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice. In addition, the defendant stated that the claimant had, at a minimum, significantly exaggerated, or in the alternative had been dishonest, regarding the extent of his injuries and losses sustained. The matter proceeded to a lengthy trial period and subsequently the judgment was handed down on August 22, 2025.

The court’s ruling

HHJ Tucker found that the claimant had fallen from his bicycle when it had either collided or come into contact with the base of the traffic bollard after the wand from the cylinder had been removed and not replaced. The Judge found that the likely reason for the removal of the wand from the base was vandalism or anti-social behaviour which occurred outside the operating hours of the construction site. HHJ Tucker found that the defendant was aware that the removal of wands from the base had been taking place since mid-August 2019.

It was found that the defendant had only installed the cylinders in accordance with the manufacturer’s instruction as the wands were not screwed into the base but instead had been inserted into the base using a twist and lock function to allow access for emergency vehicles. Further, it was found that the defendant had therefore installed them “other than in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions”. It was found that no reasonable or effective system of inspection or monitoring had been put into place in respect of the vandalism and therefore the defendant did not address any risks that arose when the construction site was closed but when the cycle lane was still open and being utilised. 

The defendant had failed to carry out a detailed risk assessment of the identified risk to cyclists caused by the removal of the wands from the base between July/ August 2019 and the claimant’s accident. Furthermore, no reasonably effective system of inspection was put into practice to make sure that the set of the bollards remained safe either initially or more importantly, after the Defendant was aware of the risk created by them.  No reasonable steps were taken to remove the hazard or improve the markings nor provide warnings and had failed to comply with the Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice.

It was found that the claimant had proved the cause of the accident, and whilst HHJ Tucker noted that the scheme in theory was fit for purpose, the implementation and maintenance of the same was not.

HHJ Tucker found that the bollards used were effectively, not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, that there was inadequate monitoring and inspection of their installation and that the base of the bollard, in absence of the wand, was an unmarked hazard for vulnerable road users which created a risk and danger for cyclists in particular.

The judge did however make a small deduction for contributory negligence in the amount of a 5% deduction to the claimant’s damages simply due to the slight criticism of the claimant’s positioning on the cycle lane. HHJ Tucker noted that they considered the fact that the claimant was positioned so close to the centre of lane, required them to exercise additional caution as he was at risk of travelling outside of the marked lane.

Conclusion

This is an interesting case which serves as a reminder of the extent a defendant must go to for them to discharge their liabilities to road users after constructing or making temporarily alterations to public highways. As was found, it was not simply a matter of implementing a sufficient traffic management system and scheme, but it was also necessary to make sure that adequate risk assessments had been completed with a sufficient and appropriate system of inspection being put in place alongside it, in order for the scheme to be properly maintained.

Practitioners should be aware and live to the issue that just because schemes and guidance is sought from any applicable authorities when it comes to highways management, it does not necessarily mean that risk assessments and/ or an adequate system of inspection has been adopted, which in itself could be of upmost importance in establishing liability.