09/10/2025
No one is safe from big data. This is no less true for local authorities and their highways inspectors.
Long gone are the days where a highways inspector could happily get by with a pen and paper, scribbling defects on a list. These have made way for co-ordinates, pins, iPads, GPS tracking, and photographs. However, each tool, as useful as it is, leaves behind a digital trail.
The risk of being tripped up by your own data was neatly demonstrated in the recent Court of Appeal case of Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council which was heard in June of this year.
The Case
The Claimant, Karpasitis (K), appealed against a high court ruling dismissing his claim against his local Highways Authority, Herefordshire County Council (HCC). The claim was made following an incident which took place on 22 April 2020. K was riding his bicycle along a path to the east of the A10 dual carriageway. While he was in the act of overtaking a jogger, he travelled onto a grass verge, collided with a pothole and he was thrown from his bicycle, suffering a complex fracture of the second vertebra. K subsequently gave up his job as a social worker as a result of his injuries.
The claim was brought by way of s.41 Highways Act 1980. S.41 provides a statutory duty on highways authorities, like HCC, to maintain highways at public expense. Case law has defined this duty further to the extent that every highway authority now has a duty to ensure that the highway is free of danger to all users who use that highway in the way normally to be expected of them.
At first instance, the High Court had found that the pothole was dangerous. It was described as “very large” and “very deep”. Accordingly, a breach of s.41 was made out. HCC’s only ability to defend the claim was to rely on the statutory defence outlined at s.58 Highways Act 1980. In the judgment of Vikram Sachdeva KC, this was made out.
K appealed.
A s.58 defence is available, where the highways authority (HCC) can prove that it “had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic”. Broadly, this defence can be reached if it can be shown that a reasonable system of inspection was in place and that the defect emerged despite that system. In order to do this, HCC relied on inspection records which had been disclosed, as well the statements of highways inspectors.
HCC’s inspection records confirmed that an inspection took place on 13 February 2020, 2 months prior to the accident. C, the highways inspector who undertook this inspection, was no longer employed by HCC, so a written statement was served in his place. C’s statement confirmed that he attended the pre- accident inspection and inspected the stretch on foot. The inspection of the footpath would have taken 10 minutes. C also confirmed that had he viewed the relevant defect on the date in question, he would have covered it up and ordered further investigation and raised it as an emergency category 1 defect.
Served alongside C’s statement was the GPS tracking data which was attached to C’s vehicle. The tracking data, once analysed, confirmed that on 13 February 2020 C’s vehicle did indeed visit the area of the footpath and stop. However, crucially, the data confirmed that C’s vehicle was in fact at the scene for only a total of 3 minutes. Accordingly, the Judge confirmed that it was “manifestly incredible” that a detailed inspection of the footpath took place on 13 February 2020.
The s.58 defence failed and K’s appeal was allowed with a 33% reduction for contributory negligence.
What’s round the corner
As well as the data collected by highways inspectors, information regarding the state of our roads is also quietly gathered by a number of third parties. Companies such as Tesla and Waze have been harvesting the highways information through data provided by customers, as well as, in the case of Tesla, by the vehicle itself. Now, in a bold move, at least one highways authority is taking the step to collect digital data on the condition of the highway using a combination of digital cameras mounted on vehicles and AI. As a result, authorities are seeking to map the highway and the defects upon them using their own hardware.
This is no doubt a brave new world. The proliferation of information regarding the state of the highway, being pumped directly into your satnav, can only be a good thing for road users. That said, one should bear in mind that this new world will also bring with it an avalanche of data, which could swamp unsuspecting highway authorities and undermine their inspection regime, putting any potential s.58 defence at risk.
