A trip on a broken pavement, raised flagstone or defective road surface can happen in a moment. The consequences can be rather more significant: fractured wrists, damaged knees and ankles, facial injuries and, in more serious cases, injuries which affect work and day-to-day life for months afterwards.
For anyone injured in that way, the obvious question is usually: can I make a claim?
The answer depends on more than the fact that you fell.
In a trip and fall claim in Northern Ireland, it is normally necessary to establish not only what caused the accident, but that the condition of the road, pavement or premises amounted to a danger for which another person or organisation was legally responsible.
A recent High Court decision, Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37, provides a particularly useful illustration of that distinction.
The plaintiff had genuinely fallen. She suffered significant injuries. Nobody suggested that the accident was her fault. The parties had even agreed damages at £55,000 if she succeeded on liability.
Her claim nevertheless failed.
For anyone considering a pavement or trip claim, the judgment provides an important insight into what actually has to be proved.
A Recent Northern Ireland Trip and Fall Case: Caren v Department for Infrastructure
The accident in Caren occurred at Prospect Hill in Ballygowan, County Down.
The plaintiff was walking the short distance home after visiting neighbours when she tripped on an area of bitmac surrounding a drainage grating close to the kerb.
There was no separate footpath at the location. Pedestrians therefore had to walk on the roadway.
The plaintiff knew the area well and had walked there many times before without noticing a problem. On this occasion, however, she fell and sustained injuries to her face, mouth, chin, wrist and knee.
There was also independent evidence supporting the circumstances of the accident. A neighbour heard the fall and came outside to assist. As he approached the plaintiff, he too stumbled at what he believed was the same location.
The Department accepted that the plaintiff had fallen and did not allege contributory fault against her. Damages had been agreed at £55,000.
The real dispute was liability.
The High Court had to determine whether the area of road was legally dangerous and, if it was, whether the Department could rely upon the statutory defence available under Article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.
A Genuine Fall Does Not Automatically Mean a Successful Claim
This is one of the most important points for anyone considering a trip or pavement injury claim.
The seriousness of an injury does not determine whether the person responsible for the road or premises was negligent.
Likewise, proving that you were not to blame for falling does not necessarily prove that somebody else was.
The issue is whether there was a danger for which the proposed defendant was legally responsible.
That distinction was expressed particularly clearly by O’Hara J at the conclusion of Caren:
“It was not in any way her fault that she fell but nor… was it in any way the fault of the Department.”
That does not mean that road and pavement claims are inherently difficult or that they cannot succeed. They do.
It does mean that each claim needs to be investigated on its evidence rather than on the assumption that an injury automatically gives rise to compensation.
When Is a Road or Pavement Legally Dangerous?
The central issue in Caren was whether the feature which caused the plaintiff to fall was sufficiently serious to amount to a danger.
The court considered the established Northern Ireland authority of Keenan v DoE [1995] NI 342.
The test is objective and is one of fact and degree.
The court referred to the established formulation that the question is whether a reasonable person would consider that:
“There is quite a chance that someone going along the road may be injured if this stays as it is.”
If injury is merely possible, but sufficiently remote that it is “not in the least probable”, the legal test of dangerousness will not be met.
In practical terms, the court is not asking whether it is possible for someone to trip. Almost any imperfect surface presents some theoretical possibility of an accident.
The question is whether the state of the road or pavement presented a sufficiently real risk that it ought objectively to have been regarded as dangerous.
Is There a 20mm Rule for Trip and Fall Claims?
The so-called “20mm rule” frequently arises in Northern Ireland pavement claims.
Indeed, our office can remember a time when the prospects of a trip claim were sometimes assessed, at least initially, with the assistance of a 20p coin, which measures roughly 21mm across. Most trainees in our office have, at one time or another, been sent to the scene of a fall to meet a client armed with the all-important 20p coin.
The thinking was simple: if the defect was higher or deeper than the coin, the claim was potentially a good one.
The law, however, is not quite that straightforward.
It is sometimes assumed that if a defect measures more than 20mm, a claim succeeds, and if it measures less than 20mm, it fails.
That is not the law.
The Department for Infrastructure’s published Road Maintenance Standards for Safety (RSPPG E019) use measurements when categorising defects and determining the appropriate response. The standards distinguish between different types of defect and between roads, footways and footpaths.
Those standards are plainly important when investigating a claim against the Department for Infrastructure.
They do not, however, create an automatic legal threshold.
O’Hara J addressed the point directly in Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37:
“While the 20 millimetre criterion is a guideline, it is not a rule and much depends on the whole surroundings.”
That is an important qualification.
A defect measuring 20mm does not, by itself, establish liability. Equally, a road or pavement claim should not be dismissed simply because a measurement falls below a particular figure.
The court is concerned with the defect in context: its shape, whether the change in level is abrupt or gradual, where it is situated, how the area is used and the risk it actually presents to pedestrians.
So, while the 20p coin may still have a place in the folklore of Northern Ireland personal injury litigation, it should never be mistaken for the legal test.
The Shape of the Defect Can Matter as Much as Its Depth
The competing engineering evidence in Caren demonstrates why.
The plaintiff’s engineer measured a rise in the tarmac of close to 30mm and considered it to represent a hazard. His evidence was that the drainage grating had not been laid to the gradient of the road and that the bitmac had effectively been ramped around it.
The Department’s engineer took a different view.
He considered the feature to be a depression or undulation rather than an abrupt tripping edge. Although his measurement was approximately 26mm, the change occurred gradually over a distance.
That difference mattered.
A raised paving stone with an abrupt vertical edge may present a very different risk from a gradual change in level extending over a wider area, even if both can be given a similar measurement at their highest point.
For that reason, in a trip and fall claim, we are interested not simply in how deep or high a defect is, but in what it actually looks like and how somebody walking normally would encounter it.
The Location of a Pavement Defect Also Matters
The court in Caren also emphasised that an alleged defect must be considered in its surroundings.
The same irregularity may not necessarily present the same risk in every location.
A defect on a heavily used pedestrian route, for example, has to be considered in that context. The nature of the users who can reasonably be expected to encounter it can also be relevant.
This became an important argument in Caren because Prospect Hill did not have a footpath.
The plaintiff’s case was that the Department had treated the location simply as a carriageway when pedestrians necessarily had to use it as a walking route. It was argued that a pedestrian would naturally walk close to the kerb, which was precisely where the plaintiff fell.
The argument did not succeed on the facts of that case, but it demonstrates why location and actual use should form part of the investigation of a road or pavement claim.
Why Did the Claim in Caren Fail?
Having considered the photographs, engineering evidence and applicable case law, O’Hara J was not satisfied that the location amounted to a danger.
He concluded:
“The plaintiff’s case must fail because the spot where she fell was just not dangerous.”
The judge considered that the possibility of somebody being injured at the location was too remote to satisfy the applicable test.
That finding disposed of the claim.
The judgment nevertheless went further and considered what the position would have been if the judge had concluded that the road was dangerous.
That brings us to one of the most important issues in claims against the Department for Infrastructure: Article 8.
The Article 8 Defence in Department for Infrastructure Claims
When we intimate a claim involving an adopted road or pavement, a common response from the Department is to confirm that the locus is maintained by it but to deny liability on the basis of its inspection regime.
Typically, the Department will say that a regular system of inspection was operating before and after the accident, that its Highway Inspector did not record the particular location as requiring repair and that the Department therefore relies upon Article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.
Inspection records from immediately before and after the accident may then be produced.
There is nothing unusual about that response.
The Department’s own Road Maintenance Standards explain that safety inspections are used to identify defects likely to create hazards and that inspection frequency varies according to the type and use of the road, footway or footpath. The standards expressly link the maintenance regime to the Department’s Article 8 responsibilities. (Department for Infrastructure)
An Article 8 defence has to be taken seriously.
It should not, however, simply be assumed to succeed because an inspection record has been produced.
What Does a Solicitor Look for in DfI Inspection Records?
Where the Department relies upon its inspection system, the records need to be examined rather than simply accepted.
Take a hypothetical example of somebody who trips on a footway at Donegall Square West in Belfast.
We would want to establish which section of the Department’s network contained the accident location and obtain the relevant inspection history.
We would then consider matters such as:
- how the location was classified;
- what inspection frequency applied;
- when it had last been inspected before the accident;
- how the inspection was undertaken;
- whether the defect appears to have been present at the previous inspection;
- what other defects were being identified in the surrounding area;
- what types of defect were being marked for repair;
- whether there had been earlier complaints about the accident location;
- whether previous repairs had been carried out; and
- whether the Department had complied with the maintenance regime applicable at that particular time.
The purpose is not simply to find another defect with the same measurement and say that the two are identical.
They may not be.
A sharp vertical edge on a heavily used footway may be quite different from a gradual depression on a lightly trafficked road.
However, the inspection history can provide important evidence of what the Department knew, what its inspectors were seeing and how its own maintenance standards were being applied in practice.
Inspection Frequency Depends on the Type of Road or Footpath
The Department does not inspect every road and pavement in Northern Ireland at identical intervals.
Its published standards classify carriageways, footways and footpaths according to matters including traffic and usage.
The Department’s current DEM 158/24 provides, for example, for more frequent inspection of high-traffic town and city-centre footways than lower-traffic footways. The memorandum records that the inspection-frequency regime resulted from a risk-based review which considered matters including traffic levels, defect numbers and road classification. (Department for Infrastructure)
That can be important when investigating a claim.
If an accident occurs on a busy Belfast city-centre footway, we would want to establish that the correct classification had been applied and that the required inspections had actually taken place.
Likewise, if an accident happens within a residential development, the classification and corresponding regime may be different.
It is the inspection regime applicable to the actual locus which matters.
The Policy in Force on the Date of the Accident Must Be Considered
Inspection and maintenance policies also change over time.
A current policy should not simply be applied retrospectively to an accident which happened a number of years ago.
That was relevant in Caren, because the plaintiff’s accident occurred in July 2020.
At that time the Department had issued DEM 160/20, dealing with the limited road maintenance service operating during 2020/21. That memorandum stated that inspections were to continue in accordance with the revised frequencies contained in DEM 158/15, while the limited-service arrangements affected which defects were to be instructed for repair. (Department for Infrastructure)
DEM 158/15, in turn, prescribed different inspection periods according to the type and usage of carriageways, footways and footpaths. (Department for Infrastructure)
Accordingly, when investigating a historic trip or fall, it may be necessary to establish which maintenance and inspection standards were actually in force on the date of the accident.
That is often more useful than simply looking at the Department’s current policy.
“It Did Not Meet Our Criteria” Does Not Automatically Decide the Claim
One phrase which regularly appears in correspondence is that the alleged defect did not meet the Department’s criteria for an actionable defect or for repair.
That is important evidence.
It is not quite the same question as the one ultimately facing a court.
The Department needs operational criteria so its inspectors can determine which defects should be recorded, how they should be categorised and what response is required. RSPPG E019 contains those standards and response categories. (Department for Infrastructure)
The court, however, must decide the legal question of ‘dangerousness.’
That is why the observation in Caren about the 20mm criterion being a guideline rather than a rule is so important.
The Department’s standards are highly relevant evidence. They are not a substitute for considering the defect, the location and the circumstances as a whole.
The reverse is also true.
A claimant cannot simply establish that a defect exceeded a particular Departmental measurement and assume that liability necessarily follows.
The Article 8 Defence Succeeded in Caren
It is important to be balanced about Article 8.
The defence is not merely a stock phrase in a Departmental letter. Where the evidence supports it, it can defeat a claim.
That is precisely what O’Hara J held in Caren.
Although his finding that the road was not dangerous was sufficient to dismiss the case, the judge considered Article 8 in case that conclusion was wrong.
He accepted the evidence of the Highway Safety Inspector and was satisfied that he was competent, experienced, qualified and properly trained. The court was also satisfied that the road had been inspected appropriately.
The Department therefore would have established its Article 8 defence in any event.
The lesson for a claimant is not that an inspection defence cannot be challenged.
It is that it has to be challenged on evidence.
The Department Is Not Required to Make Every Road Perfect
There was a further argument in Caren concerning the original construction of the road.
The plaintiff’s engineer considered that the drainage feature may not originally have been installed correctly. The plaintiff argued, in effect, that the Department had subsequently adopted a road containing that irregularity.
That argument also failed.
Referring to Keenan v DoE, O’Hara J explained that adoption does not make the Department responsible for every issue arising from the original construction.
The judgment stated:
“The statutory duty is to maintain the fabric of the highway, not to guarantee the perfection of its original construction.”
That is consistent with the wider approach of the court.
The Department has an obligation to maintain the road network. It does not guarantee that every road and footpath will be completely flat or free from every minor irregularity.
As the court observed in Caren, a road does not have to measure up to the standard of a “bowling green.”
What Evidence Should You Get After a Trip or Fall?
One of the practical difficulties with trip and fall claims is that the physical evidence can change very quickly.
A pothole may be repaired. A raised flag may be relaid. A spillage may be cleaned. CCTV may be overwritten.
If you have been injured, obtaining evidence at an early stage can therefore be extremely important.
Take photographs of the defect
If it is safe to do so, take clear photographs of whatever caused you to fall.
Do not take only one close-up photograph.
Photograph the defect from several angles and also take wider photographs which show exactly where it is situated.
A photograph showing a hole without any context may be of limited assistance months or years later.
Record measurements where possible
Where the claim involves a raised or depressed surface, photographs showing an accurate measurement can be useful.
Again, measurement is not the entire case, but it is important evidence.
Record the exact location
An instruction that the accident happened “somewhere on the Lisburn Road” is obviously much less useful than being able to identify the precise section of pavement, nearby premises or other landmark.
The exact locus becomes particularly important when inspection and maintenance records have to be obtained.
Obtain witness details
If somebody saw the accident, or knew about the defect beforehand, obtain their name and contact details.
Evidence that a defect had been present for some time or had previously caused difficulty may become relevant.
Report the defect
Where appropriate, the defect should be reported.
A report made close to the date of the accident may also provide a contemporaneous record of the condition complained of.
Seek medical attention
Your health comes first.
Medical records also provide an important contemporaneous record of the injuries and symptoms following an accident.
Keep records of financial loss
Depending on the injuries sustained, a claim may include more than compensation for the injury itself.
Keep evidence of any loss of earnings, treatment costs, medication, travel expenses or other reasonable financial losses caused by the accident.
What Injuries Can Be Claimed for After a Trip or Fall?
Trips and falls can result in a wide range of injuries.
We commonly see claims involving:
- wrist and arm fractures;
- ankle injuries;
- knee injuries;
- shoulder injuries;
- facial and dental injuries;
- cuts and scarring;
- back injuries;
- ligament and soft-tissue injuries; and
- more serious injuries following heavy falls.
The value of a claim depends upon the individual medical evidence rather than the label attached to the accident.
Two people who trip over the same defect may sustain entirely different injuries and therefore have very different claims.
How Much Compensation Is a Trip and Fall Claim Worth?
£55,000.00 was the figure agreed in Caren.
That said, there is no standard compensation figure for a trip and fall claim in Northern Ireland.
The value will depend upon matters including the nature of the injury, the recovery period, whether symptoms are likely to be permanent, any effect on employment and the financial losses caused by the accident.
Medical evidence will normally be required before an injury can be valued properly.
The £55,000 figure in Caren is a useful reminder of another important point: the value of a claim and liability are separate questions.
The parties in that case had agreed the value of the plaintiff’s injuries, but because she failed to establish liability, she did not recover those damages.
What About Trips and Falls in Shops, Workplaces and Other Premises?
Not every trip and fall claim involves the Department for Infrastructure.
Accidents also happen in supermarkets, shops, workplaces, hotels, restaurants, shopping centres, car parks and other private premises.
The legal duties in those cases can be different.
Examples might include:
- a supermarket failing to deal with a spillage;
- broken or uneven flooring in a shop;
- materials left across a walkway at work;
- defective stairs or handrails;
- loose mats;
- trailing cables;
- poorly lit access routes; or
- other hazards which should reasonably have been identified and addressed.
Those claims may involve occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability or negligence rather than the particular Roads Order provisions considered in Caren.
The central exercise is nevertheless familiar: what caused the fall, who was responsible for the area, and should reasonable steps have been taken to prevent the accident?
How Long Do You Have to Make a Trip and Fall Claim in Northern Ireland?
You should seek legal advice promptly following an accident.
The normal limitation period for a personal injury claim in Northern Ireland is three years, although exceptions can apply and limitation can depend upon the circumstances of the individual case.
There is a more practical reason not to wait.
Even where the legal deadline is years away, the best evidence may disappear within days or weeks.
A solicitor instructed early has a much better opportunity to preserve photographs and CCTV, identify witnesses and obtain the relevant inspection, complaint and maintenance records.
Should I Speak to a Solicitor About a Trip and Fall Claim?
If you have suffered an injury from a fall or slip accident and believe that a defective pavement, road or premises caused your fall, it is sensible to obtain advice before deciding whether there is a worthwhile claim.
A photograph which looks compelling to a plaintiff may raise quite different issues when considered against the legal test, engineering evidence and maintenance records.
Equally, a rejection letter stating that the Department had inspected the road and relies upon Article 8 does not necessarily tell the whole story.
The proper approach is to investigate the evidence and advise on the merits.
Speak to a Trip and Fall Solicitor in Belfast
Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37 is a useful recent reminder of what is involved in a Northern Ireland road or pavement claim.
The plaintiff suffered a genuine and significant injury. Nobody blamed her for falling. The proposed damages were £55,000.
The claim nevertheless failed because the High Court was not satisfied that the location was legally dangerous and, in any event, found that the Department had established its Article 8 defence.
That should not discourage someone with a genuine claim from seeking advice.
It should demonstrate why these cases require proper investigation.
At Lacey Solicitors, our personal injury solicitors in Belfast act for clients in trip and fall claims throughout Northern Ireland, including claims involving defective pavements, roads, public places, workplaces and private premises.
Where the claim involves the Department for Infrastructure, we can consider the photographs and measurements, identify the relevant road or footway classification, examine the inspection and repair records and consider any defence raised under Article 8.
If you have been injured in a trip or fall and would like to know whether you have a claim, contact our personal injury team to discuss what happened and the evidence available.
