Falls on Public Roads: Requirements for Establishing Public Administration Patrimonial Liability

Falls on public roads are one of the most common grounds for claims against local authorities. A simple trip can result in significant injuries and a key legal question: must the Town Council pay compensation?

The answer, as is often the case in administrative law, is not automatic and depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Case law has defined with considerable precision which requirements must be met for public administration patrimonial liability to arise from a fall on a public road.

Below, we set out in a clear and accessible way the principles that courts follow in this area.

The Starting Point: Public Administration Patrimonial Liability

The Spanish administrative system is built on a fundamental principle: citizens have the right to be compensated for any loss they suffer in any of their assets and rights, except in cases of force majeure, provided that the loss is a consequence of the operation of public services.

This principle is recognised in Article 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution and is currently developed in Article 32 of Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector.

As recalled by Judgment No. 585/2007 of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 25 June, Appeal No. 2640/2003, this system is characterised by liability that is:

objective (no fault required);
direct;
and based on the normal or abnormal operation of the public service.

However, this does not mean that the Administration is always liable.

Requirements for Patrimonial Liability to Arise

Case law consistently requires the concurrence of several elements. In simplified terms, they are as follows.

Existence of a Real and Quantifiable Damage

There must be an effective loss that is economically quantifiable and individualised.

This first requirement is usually the least problematic: in most cases, physical injuries are evidenced by medical and expert reports.

That the Damage Is Unlawful (Antijurídico)

This is one of the most important concepts.

Not every harm is compensable: only that which the citizen has no legal duty to bear.

As stated in Judgment No. 58/2024 of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia, Administrative Chamber, Section 1, of 9 February, Appeal No. 313/2022, the damage will be unlawful when the risk exceeds the safety standards required according to social awareness. In other words: cities are not perfect, but they must be reasonably safe.

Causal Link

There must be a direct link between the condition of the public road and the fall. This requires proving:

where the fall occurred;
how it occurred;
and that the defect was the determining cause.

For example, Judgment No. 231/2022 of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 19 April, Appeal No. 153/2021, found the causal link established where the fall was caused by the subsidence of the pavement around a public lighting cover, corroborated by witnesses and immediate medical assistance.

Attribution to the Administration

The damage must derive from the operation of the public service, normally that of maintaining and preserving public roads (Art. 25.2.d) of the Law on the Bases of Local Government). This is the case when, for example, there are loose paving slabs on the road, unexpected subsidence, potholes or dangerous elements that are not signposted.

Absence of Force Majeure or Exclusive Fault of the Victim

The Administration may be exonerated if force majeure exists, or if the damage is attributable exclusively to the conduct of the injured party.

Nevertheless, what is frequently found is contributory fault on both sides, which reduces the amount of compensation.

The Council Is Not a «Universal Insurer»

One of the messages most consistently repeated by the courts is that not every fall gives rise to liability.

Judgment No. 231/2022 of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 19 April, Appeal No. 153/2021 recalls that the system does not turn the Administration into an «universal insurer of all risks».

This means that minor defects or irregularities may be considered normal or an inherent risk of everyday life, and a minimum level of care is also required of pedestrians.

When Is the Administration Liable? Examples

Significant Defects in the Pavement

When the defect exceeds what a pedestrian could reasonably foresee.

This is recognised in Judgment No. 27/2023 of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 27 January, Appeal No. 486/2022, which found the Town Council liable for a subsidence of the pavement in a pedestrian area that was not signposted, emphasising that pedestrians cannot be expected to look constantly at the ground.

Evident Lack of Maintenance

In Judgment No. 585/2007 of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 25 June, Appeal No. 2640/2003, the Town Council was held liable for an uncovered tree pit in a pedestrian area, aggravated by the poor lighting in the zone. The court underlined that this obstacle posed a clear danger to normal pedestrian movement.

Lack of Control at Organised or Authorised Events

Particularly noteworthy is the case of Judgment No. 591/2024 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, Section 1, of 30 September, Appeal No. 1325/2022. Here, the fall occurred during a solidarity walk for Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a paving slab in poor condition. The court found that the Town Council was required to ensure that the route was in adequate condition, particularly given the participation of elderly people.

The Importance of Context: Not Everything Depends on the Condition of the Road

One of the most interesting aspects of recent case law is that cases are not analysed in isolation, but with regard to the specific circumstances. Judgment No. 58/2024 of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia, Administrative Chamber, Section 1, of 9 February, Appeal No. 313/2022 is very clear on this point:

Even when the road complies with the applicable regulations, liability may arise if adequate measures are not taken in special situations.

In that case: there was a large-scale event (a concert), there was a level difference and it was not signposted. The Town Council’s liability was found, but reduced by 50% due to contributory fault on the part of the injured party, on the basis that the 68-year-old woman who brought the claim was accessing that area after the concert had already begun, being aware of the crowds, darkness and existing risks.

Evidence: The Decisive Element

In this type of claim, evidence is decisive.

Courts place particular weight on photographs of the location, medical and expert reports, statements from eyewitnesses, the intervention of emergency services and even subsequent repairs.

For example, in Judgment No. 231/2022 of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, Administrative Chamber, Section 2, of 19 April, Appeal No. 153/2021, witness testimony was sufficient to establish how the fall occurred, even though the photographs were not conclusive.

How to Make a Claim: Time Limit and Procedure

The procedure begins with a patrimonial liability claim addressed to the Town Council. The time limit for making a claim is one year from the event or, where there are injuries, from recovery or the determination of the extent of any permanent effects (Art. 67.1 of Law 39/2015 on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations).

The Administration has six months to resolve the claim. If that period passes without a response, deemed administrative refusal applies and the administrative courts become available to pursue the compensation claim.

To quantify the compensation for the fall, courts use as a guide the traffic accident scale (Law 35/2015), taking into account the days of recovery and the permanent effects evidenced by expert report.

Conclusion

Falls on public roads do not automatically give rise to a right to compensation. For a claim to succeed, it is necessary to establish: (i) a real loss; (ii) that it is unlawful; (iii) a clear causal link; and (iv) that the risk exceeds normal safety standards.

In short, the key lies in demonstrating that this was not merely an everyday accident, but a consequence of the operation — normal or abnormal — of a public service. When the damage is caused not by the Administration but by a private individual — for example, in cases of civil liability of parents for harm caused by their children — the avenue and requirements are different.

Because, as case law reminds us, the Administration must guarantee the safety of public roads, but cannot entirely eliminate all the risks of daily life.

Our firm handles patrimonial liability claims against Town Councils and other public authorities. If you have suffered a fall on a public road and believe it may have been caused by the poor condition of the pavement or a lack of maintenance, we can assess your case. Get in touch.

Frequently Asked Questions About Falls on Public Roads

How much compensation can I claim from the Council for a fall in the street?

There is no fixed amount. Compensation depends on the damage established and is calculated on the basis of recovery time and permanent effects, using the traffic accident scale as a guide. Each case is different and must be assessed with an expert report.

What is the time limit for making a claim?

One year from the stabilisation of the injuries, pursuant to Article 67.1 of Law 39/2015. If that period is allowed to pass, the action becomes time-barred.

What evidence do I need to claim for a fall?

Photographs of the location and the defect, accident and medical reports, details of eyewitnesses and, if applicable, the intervention of emergency services. The more evidence of the condition of the road and the causal link, the better.

What if I was also careless when walking?

Contributory fault may be found, which reduces the compensation by a percentage, but does not always eliminate it entirely. This will depend on the circumstances of the location and the foreseeability of the risk.