Cyclist who lost an eye sues council after crashing into footpath barricade
Just minutes after he began a regular early morning bike ride one summer day, Victor Dennison’s life changed forever when he crashed into a makeshift mesh barricade erected on a footpath.
The 64-year-old man fell and impaled his left eye on a metal stake holding a corner of the barricade, destroying his eye and causing a traumatic brain injury.
But despite the court finding workers failed to comply with relevant standards, guidelines and internal policies, Brisbane City Council was not found liable in a High Court ruling this month.
Dennison, a retired industrial chemist, was a fit and active man who liked to get out early in the summer months, before the weather got too hot and the roads became crowded.
Just after 4am on December 18, 2009, Dennison was riding his bike along the footpath next to Zillmere Road in Aspley, near the corner of Kirby Road, when he crashed.
He remained conscious for a short time and somehow managed to grab his bike, park it in the support stand, walk over to the orange mesh barricade, and grab the stake before collapsing.
A short time later, a passerby found him lying face down on the path.
The day before, the municipal construction team had dug up part of the path to work on the underground water network. They filled the hole, reconcreted the road, and erected a barricade to protect the concrete from drying overnight.
The barricade and yellow steel stakes were not reflective or fluorescent and had no caps.
Judge Lincoln Crowley found that no warning lights or signs had been placed around the barricade, and although he accepted that the crew had left four witches’ hats with white reflective center bands in the area, these were not there at the time of the crash and were likely stolen.
Crowley noticed that the sky was black, Dennison was using his bicycle lights, and the nearest street light was not on at the time.
The judge said a cyclist could not clearly see from 30 meters away that the right side of the barricade was connected to the fence, blocking access.
“Due to poor lighting levels, reduced visibility, and the absence of other restraints or markings, Mr. Dennison was unable to fully see and appreciate the nature and extent of the barricade until he was nearly upon him and was unable to avoid a collision,” Crowley wrote in his decision.
Crowley said Dennison tried to swerve to the right of the path towards the grass strip, but by the time he could see the entire barricade it was too late to avoid the crash.
“While BCC staff thought it was logical and appropriate to attach the barricade to the fence, I think this is a measure that is unlikely to be anticipated and expected by a cyclist riding along the footpath in the dark, even if they see the barricade obstacle along the footpath in front of them,” he said.
Crowley said the council had failed to comply with standards and policies, including failing to carry out a proper risk assessment to barricade work areas, failing to design an alternative route for pedestrians, failing to install signs warning of the danger and failing to use reflective devices and signs.
But he found the council not responsible and said the way the barricade was set up was not unreasonable – despite policies and standards – because decisions were up to jurisdiction.
Dennison is now 80 years old and lives with frontal lobe dementia. His wife sued the council on his behalf for personal injuries which they claimed were caused by the council’s negligence.
The council argued that it did not breach its duty of care to people using the footpath because the measures it took to manage the risks were reasonable and sufficient in the circumstances.
Following the incident, the municipality changed its procedures regarding roadblocks.
The council and Dennison’s lawyers have been contacted for comment.
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
