Who Should Be Billed for an Accident Caused by a Manhole on the Road — The Grand Chamber to Settle the Dispute

The Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court referred to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court a case that requires determining who should be liable for damage caused to a vehicle due to a faulty sewer manhole on the roadway — the road maintainer or the owner of the relevant engineering networks.

The dispute arose between the owner of the damaged car and the municipal enterprise responsible for maintaining the relevant section of the road in Kyiv. The plaintiff sought to recover over 1.1 million UAH in property damage caused by the traffic accident. The courts of first and appellate instances satisfied the claim, but during the cassation review, the Supreme Court concluded that the case raises an issue on which judicial practice has different approaches. For this reason, it was referred to the Grand Chamber.

Circumstances of the Case

As established by the courts, the driver of the vehicle hit a manhole cover of an inspection chamber, the fastener of which was broken. Because of this, the manhole cover shifted, and part of it protruded above the road surface, creating an obstacle for vehicles.

According to the court expert's conclusion, the presence of such an obstacle was the technical cause of the traffic accident. A commodity expert examination determined the cost of restorative repairs for the damaged vehicle at 1,165,796.67 UAH.

The courts also established that the section of the road where the accident occurred is under the economic management of the municipal enterprise-defendant.

Decisions of the Lower Courts

The Commercial Court of Kyiv satisfied the claim, and the Northern Appellate Commercial Court left this decision unchanged.

The courts reasoned that the municipal enterprise, as the road maintainer, is obliged to exercise constant control over the operational condition of all elements of the road facility and ensure safe traffic conditions. Since the accident occurred due to the improper condition of a road infrastructure element, the enterprise was obliged to compensate for the damage caused.

Why the Case Was Referred to the Grand Chamber

During the cassation appeal review, the Commercial Cassation Court analyzed previous Supreme Court practice.

In particular, in case No. 639/2132/18, the Civil Cassation Court agreed with the conclusion that the road maintainer should be liable for damage caused by the improper condition of a manhole on the roadway, as it is responsible for controlling the condition of all elements of the road facility and structures located on it.

This approach was also relied upon by the courts in the current case.

At the same time, the Commercial Cassation Court noted other Supreme Court decisions where liability for damage caused by faulty manholes was assigned to the maintainers of sewer networks and relevant engineering structures.

According to the court, this indicates inconsistent application of legal norms in similar legal relations and requires the development of a unified approach at the level of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

Why the Commercial Cassation Court Doubted the Previous Approach

The panel of judges noted that legislation imposes on road maintainers the obligation to constantly monitor the condition of road facilities and eliminate obstacles to traffic. At the same time, owners and users of engineering communications are also obliged to maintain the proper technical condition of structures and equipment under their management.

The court cited legislative provisions according to which owners of engineering communications must keep them in proper technical condition and prevent the emergence of hazardous conditions for road traffic.

In the circumstances of this case, the panel noted that the responsible party for the damages may be the entity on whose balance or use the relevant manhole or related property complex is located. The Commercial Cassation Court considers this approach necessary for the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court to evaluate.

What the Supreme Court Decided

The Commercial Cassation Court did not make a final decision on who exactly should compensate for the damages in this dispute.

Instead, the court concluded that to ensure uniform judicial practice, the case should be reviewed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which should determine the approach to identifying the proper defendant in disputes over compensation for damage caused by faulty manholes and other engineering structures on roads.

By the ruling dated June 8, 2026, the Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court referred case No. 910/6332/25 to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The future decision of the Grand Chamber will be significant for a large number of disputes concerning compensation for damage caused to vehicles due to the improper condition of manholes, wells, and other elements of engineering networks located on the roadway.

The conclusion of the Grand Chamber will determine whom the injured parties should involve as defendants in such cases — the road maintainer or the owner of the relevant communications and structures.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.