There are more and more bollards on the streets of major cities, the main purpose of which is to restrict the access or passage of vehicles to restricted areas.
Being an urban element, its characteristics are regulated, so if it does not comply with the regulations and thus causes damage to our vehicle, there is always the possibility to claim the administration responsible for the installation, as explained to ABC of Pyramid Consuylting.
The regulation can be found in Royal Decree 505/2007 of April 20, which develops the technical document of the basic conditions of accessibility and non-discrimination for access and use of urbanized public spaces and in Order VIV/561/2010 of February 1. This is detailed by the advisor’s legal department. Likewise, they also indicate that its features are included in Article 29 of the above-mentioned Decree, which establishes the following:
-The length of those located in pedestrian areas will be between 0.75 and 0.90 m.
-The minimum width and diameter is 10 cm and a rounded design with no borders.
-The color should contrast with the pavement throughout the entire piece or at least in the top area so it can be seen at night.
-As for their location, they will be placed in an aligned manner and under no circumstances should they enter the accessible pedestrian route or reduce their width at intersections or other points along the route.
Knowing all its characteristics, numerous questions arise in this regard: can the administration be responsible in case of damage to vehicles or persons? Are the consequences the same regardless of the goal of the post?
The experts consulted assure that when assessing the potential responsibility of the administrations, “it should be taken into account that a series of requirements established by doctrine for the origin of the public administration’s responsibility for wealth should be met”:
1. Reality of a harmful outcome.
2. The illegality of the damage or injury, given the qualification of this concept, both because the perpetrator’s conduct is contrary to the law and, above all, because the person who suffers it does not have a legal obligation to bear it, a matter that must be specified in each specific case.
3. Attributability of the harmful activity to the Administration thanks to the integration of the agent in the framework of the administrative organization to which he belongs.
4. The direct and exclusive causal link between the administrative activity and the harmful result. The damage must be the sole result of the normal or abnormal functioning of a public service or administrative activity.
5. Absence of force majeure».
Therefore, “it is necessary that the above requirements are met in order to claim this responsibility from the administration”.
In the case of bollards, in the first place, as stated in Opinion No. 41/12 of the Permanent Commission of the Advisory Council of the Community of Madrid, issued unanimously at its meeting on January 25, 2012, to be taken into account when determining of the possible responsibility of the administration, if the purpose of the bollards is to prevent the entry of cars from pedestrian areas or if they had the simple purpose of beautifying or distinguishing parts of the road. In the case where the purpose is merely graceful, the cause would be justified by what, if not imputable to the administration’s negligence or acts, in principle its responsibility would hardly be justifiable.
Another example where the responsibility always lies with the driver or hardly ever lies with the administration, is when the damage occurs because the driver does not respect the indications on the road signs and has entered the road incorrectly.
In case of damage to vehicles, the responsibility of the administration is assessed when the damage to, for example, a vehicle is caused by the loosening of a granite ball placed on the pavement as a bollard, which rolls down and hits the vehicle.
The responsibility is produced by the mechanism of “la culpa in vigilando” of the municipal council by omitting the proper inspection of the public road, being responsible for all the elements contained in the municipal spaces in the right conditions. This criterion is established, inter alia, in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Madrid, the Disputes Administrative Chamber, Section 2, judgment of 23.01.2007.
Another case in which the administration’s responsibility was assessed was the collision of a vehicle against a bollard placed on the road by the municipality. They also cite another example where a driver’s vehicle was damaged by the impact of a retractable bollard on its underside, and the administration’s responsibility was estimated.
Source: La Verdad
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
