A Bump In The Road: Plaintiff Cyclist v Cork County Council

Mr. Justice Sheehan in Cork Circuit court on the 24 July 2026 dismissed the claim, the Plaintiff had pleaded that he had been thrown off his bicycle by a lump of tarmacadam deposited on the roadway by Cork County Council

The Plaintiff in this claim pleaded that on 21 April 2021 he was thrown from his bicycle when his bicycle came into contact with a lump of tarmacadam deposited on the roadway. The Plaintiff pleaded that Cork County Council, its servants or agents, were guilty of negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty in or about the care, control, upkeep and/or maintenance of the public highway where the accident occurred and as a result the Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, loss, damage, inconvenience and expense. 

The Plaintiff’s claim was grounded on the assertion that the Defendant was responsible for the lump of tarmacadam which was present on the road and caused the Plaintiff to fall off his bicycle. The Expert Engineer for the Plaintiff stated that from the evidence he had seen there had been repair works carried out at the trench near the centre of the carriageway where the accident took place, and that the lump of tar arose from these repair works. The Expert Engineer for the Plaintiff also put forward evidence asserting the tar was cold tar as opposed to hot tar. 

It was the position of the Defendant that the lump of tarmacadam on the road was hot tar, and that Cork County Council at the time of the accident only used cold tar and not hot tar and therefore they could not have placed or allowed the tarmacadam to be deposited on the hard shoulder of the carriageway, where the accident occurred. The Expert Engineer for the Defendant gave evidence that the lump of tarmac could be clearly identified by the photographs provided and was clearly hot tar, which the Defendant did not have access to. An Engineer, employed by the Defendant, also gave evidence that the Defendant did not have access to hot tarmacadam. 

In giving his judgment, Judge Sheehan indicated that his view was that on the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff had not proved to the Court that the defect, which was the subject matter of these proceedings, was caused by the Defendant, its servants or agents. On that basis he dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. Counsel for the Defendant sought an order for costs which counsel for the Plaintiff objected to. Judge Sheehan adjourned the matter in relation to costs.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.