Injuries on the sidewalk: Determining liability for wage loss and health repercussions

In a recent ruling, a court has determined that a defendant, who was responsible for maintaining a sidewalk, negligently violated their duty of care, leading to an accident that left a pedestrian injured.

The court stated that the defendant could have and should have recognised the accident risk posed by certain recesses and a sharp-edged depression running parallel to the sidewalk, which were hazardous areas at the time of the accident. This depression, it was found, was created by a company working on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant was the traffic safety duty holder and, as such, should have adequately protected pedestrians from the dangers posed by these indentations. Stricter standards apply to hazardous areas not caused by natural events or third-party interventions but created by the traffic safety duty holder.

As a result of the accident, the pedestrian sustained injuries including a tear of the outer ligament of the upper ankle joint, damage to another outer ligament, a bruise, and a bone contusion. The pedestrian continues to suffer from accident-related pain and has sustained a permanent injury in the form of reduced mobility of the right ankle.

The pedestrian was unable to work for over 6.5 months due to the injuries. The court ruled that the owner of the sidewalk was liable for the damages and pain and suffering, but the pedestrian also bears 50% responsibility for the accident.

However, the defendant's appeal against the first-instance judgment on the payment of damages and compensation has only partially succeeded. The defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for 50% of all damages that may arise from the accident in the future. The plaintiff can demand half the replacement of the material damages caused by the accident from the defendant.

The plaintiff can claim the payment of damages for the injuries and consequences of the injuries suffered due to the accident, as well as for further immaterial damages. The court also stated that the plaintiff must take into account a mitigating fault of 50% in the occurrence of the accident.

It is worth noting that the owner responsible for the defective sidewalk where the pedestrian fell is typically the adjacent property owner, as they generally bear the duty of care for the sidewalk in front of their property and are subject to traffic safety obligations. Specific ownership details would depend on the property registry and local jurisdiction.

The commune's appeal against the Higher Regional Court's judgment in favour of the pedestrian has not been disclosed at the time of this report. The plaintiff, however, is still entitled to a claim for the payment of damages and compensation according to the judgment of the Higher Regional Court.