The Court of Appeal has restated that a highway authority which creates a feature on the road owes road users a duty of care over reasonably foreseeable design dangers, and that the real question is breach.
Key facts
- Who: Cyclists and other road users injured by a feature a highway authority built; highway authorities and road designers
- From: 18 August 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Transport for London v Cairn Young & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 1095
On 18 August 2026 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in Transport for London v Cairn Young & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 1095. Lady Justice Yip gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith.
Background
Two experienced cyclists, Mr Young (August 2019) and Mr Upitis (January 2020), crashed in the dark on Farringdon Road, part of Cycle Superhighway 6. The cycle track there sits above the carriageway, separated by a pale stone kerb with an upstand of about 5 to 6 cm. Both tarmac surfaces looked very similar. Each cyclist mistook the kerb for a continuous white line marking a cycle lane, hit it and fell.
The two claims were tried together in the County Court. HHJ Hellman found Transport for London (TfL) liable, with contributory negligence of 65% for Mr Upitis and 70% for Mr Young. TfL appealed the finding of primary liability.
The question
The appeal raised the nature of a highway authority's duty when it creates a feature on the road, how obvious the hazard was, whether it matters that the risk arises only for a careless road user, and whether the trial judge could find breach by pointing to measures such as a row of wands along the kerb.
The decision and reasoning
The Court of Appeal said the law is settled and clear, and that the suggested tension between Yetkin v Mahmood & London Borough of Newham [2010] EWCA Civ 776 and other authorities was misconceived. It described two kinds of case:
- Claims that an authority failed to improve the road, warn of an ordinary feature or use a statutory power. Here there is no general common law duty (Stovin v Wise; Gorringe v Calderdale).
- Claims that an authority, by a positive act, created or materially contributed to a danger. Here ordinary negligence principles may apply, as in Yetkin.
Building the track was a positive act, so TfL owed a duty of care to all road users in relation to reasonably foreseeable dangers arising from the design and construction of the track at this location. That duty is not owed only to careful road users. A claimant's negligence does not preclude the duty, though it may bear heavily on breach, causation and contributory negligence.
The court stressed that duty and breach must be kept apart. The duty is to take reasonable care, not to eliminate all foreseeable risk. Breach calls for an evaluative assessment of all the circumstances, including the size of the risk, the gravity of injury, the social value of the facility, standards and guidance, design judgment, accident history, and the cost, practicality and drawbacks of further precautions.
The court also said the trial decision was one made on the facts as they applied to this particular location.
What this means for cyclists and highway authorities
The Court of Appeal treated the dispute as a question of breach, decided on the facts of the specific location. It identified the factors a court weighs when deciding whether reasonable care required further precautions, and it confirmed that a claimant's own carelessness can bear on breach, causation and contributory negligence.
Sources
- Transport for London v Cairn Young & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 1095, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 18 August 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/1095