Last September, the Quebec Superior Court ordered the City of Montreal to pay more than $1 million in damages to a woman who became paraplegic and to her family following a cycling accident on a city street.1

Facts

The woman was cycling under an overpass where there was no bike path. As she passed over the drain covers that extended almost across the entire street, her bicycle came to a sudden stop and she was thrown off. There was no indication to cyclists that they should use the elevated sidewalk rather than the roadway.

The City argued that the street in question was not "designated as a cycling route." However, it admitted that the part of the street where the accident happened was frequently used by cyclists.

The court found that although the street had no bike path, minimum safety standards should have been respected, observing that it was foreseeable that many cyclists would use the route and that the City owed them a duty of care and diligence. Such a duty implies that the City take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those who [translation] "use the City's infrastructures in a normal, foreseeable and authorized manner."

The court found that the drain covers posed a significant risk for cyclists and that by installing them on a roadway where bicycle traffic was authorized the City failed to discharge its duty to ensure safety.

Conclusion

In spring 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld another decision of the Superior Court in which the City of Montreal was also ordered to pay damages to a cyclist who fell while cycling on a street with no bike path. In that case, one of the wheels of the bicycle became stuck in a depression in the street.2

These recent decisions show that when cyclists use streets that have no bike paths and their use is normal, foreseeable and authorized, municipalities have an obligation to ensure their safety.

Thus, particularly during routine inspections, municipalities should look out for and fix any "traps" on routes that cyclists can be expected and are authorized to use, in order to prevent accidents.

Footnotes

1 Wilson Davies c. Montréal (Ville de), 2011 QCCS 4756. This judgment has been appealed.

2 Scanlan c. Montréal (Ville de), 2008 QCCS 5414 and 2011 QCCA 614.

Norton Rose OR LLP

Norton Rose OR LLP is a member of Norton Rose Group, a leading international legal practice offering a full business law service to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia Pacific, Canada, Africa and the Middle East.

The Group's lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across borders to support clients anywhere in the world. The Group is strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

Norton Rose Group has more than 2600 lawyers operating from 39 offices in Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.

Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose OR LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates.

On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon merges with Norton Rose OR, creating a global energy and mining powerhouse within Norton Rose Group. For more information, please visit nortonrose.com.

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.