When a road traffic accident occurs, attention is usually focused first on the driver.
Was the driver travelling too fast? Did they lose control? Did they make a mistake? Could they have reacted differently?
These are necessary questions, but they are not always the only questions that should be asked.
The road itself is also part of road safety.
The condition of the road surface, signage, visibility, road design, lighting, vehicle restraint systems, safety barriers, maintenance of the roadside and the authorities’ response to previously known risks may determine both whether an accident occurs and, in particular, the severity of its consequences.
Therefore, when there are indications that an accident may have been related to poor road conditions, inadequate signage, a pothole, an insufficiently signposted dangerous bend, missing guardrails or safety barriers, or any other defect affecting the road, the driver’s conduct should not be the only factor analysed.
It is also necessary to examine whether the public authority responsible for the road properly complied with its duties regarding maintenance, signage and safety.
The law is clear. Article 57 of the Spanish Road Traffic, Motor Vehicle Circulation and Road Safety Act places responsibility on the road authority to maintain the road in the best possible conditions for safe circulation and to install and maintain appropriate road signs and markings.
When a breach of those obligations causes or contributes to damage that a citizen has no legal duty to bear, public authority liability — responsabilidad patrimonial de la Administración — may arise.
At ASO Corporate, we conducted proceedings that provide a particularly significant example of this reality: the David Pérez Sempere case, involving a 21-year-old man who lost his life following an accident on the C-59 road.
After years of administrative claims and court proceedings, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia recognised liability on the part of the Government of Catalonia, establishing a 50% apportionment of liability.
The judgment is particularly relevant because it highlights a fundamental principle:
A person may make a mistake while driving and, at the same time, there may be a defect in the infrastructure that contributes to causing or dramatically worsening the consequences.
For this reason, accidents involving public roads may require a combined assessment from different perspectives: road traffic accidents, public authority liability, Administrative Law, judicial review and administrative litigation, accident reconstruction and assessment of damages.
If you have suffered a similar accident, our team of road accident and compensation lawyers can review the circumstances, determine who was responsible for the road and assess the available legal options.
David Pérez Sempere was 21 years old.
In November 2021, he was involved in an accident while driving on the C-59 road, within the municipality of Sant Feliu de Codines.
His vehicle left the road and ultimately went down an embankment.
David died.
From that moment onwards, his mother, Ester Sempere, began a legal fight that would last for years.
The issue that eventually came before the courts was not limited to determining why the vehicle had left the carriageway.
There was a second, legally decisive question:
The investigation carried out in connection with the case examined the condition of the road section, signage, visibility, restraint systems, road layout and existing background information.
The case has also attracted public attention.
Europa Press published the following report on 2 September 2026:
According to the published report, the proceedings examined, among other matters, visibility on that section of road, lighting, signage warning of the bend and the restraint elements present in the area through which the vehicle ultimately left the road.
The Government of Catalonia and its insurer argued that responsibility rested exclusively with the driver.
The Court did not fully accept that position.
The Chamber concluded that there was concurrent causation and attributed responsibility both to the driver and to the public authority.
This is particularly important for other victims of road traffic accidents.
The relevant judgment is:
Judgment No. 656/2026 of the Administrative Litigation Chamber, Fourth Section, of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia.
Date: 11 May 2026
Proceedings: 1554/2023
ECLI: ES:TSJCAT:2026:3972
CENDOJ: 08019330042026100367
ROJ: STSJ CAT 3972:2026
Legal representation of the claimant was led by Ángel Aso Roldán, founding partner and Legal Director of ASO Corporate.
The Court declared that the Department of Territory of the Government of Catalonia bore public authority liability, with a 50% share of responsibility.
This distinction is fundamental.
The judgment does not state that the public authority was the sole cause of the accident.
The legally important point is precisely the opposite:
The case therefore provides a practical example of the significance that concurrent causation can have in a public authority liability claim.
Potentially, yes.
It will always depend on the specific circumstances and the available evidence.
One of the most common misconceptions is:
“If the driver made a mistake, there is nothing left to claim.”
That is not necessarily correct.
In public authority liability cases there may be concurrent causes or shared responsibility.
This is particularly important in run-off-road accidents.
Imagine that a driver makes an error and partially leaves the carriageway.
The first question will be:
Why did the vehicle leave the road?
But there may be a second question:
Why did leaving the road result in extremely serious injuries or death?
There is a considerable difference between encountering:
and directly encountering:
In certain cases, this difference may become the central issue in a public authority liability claim.
Where the Administration rejects the claim or court proceedings become necessary, it is equally important to have an Administrative and Public Law litigation lawyer.
In order to explain the case publicly and, in particular, to share the experience with other families, ASO Corporate has published an in-depth interview with Ester Sempere, David’s mother, and Ángel Aso, the lawyer who led the proceedings.
Over approximately 45 minutes, the interview explains:
Watch the full interview on YouTube
We recommend watching the full interview to understand David’s personal story, Ester’s experience and the legal development of the proceedings.
The significance of the case goes beyond the court proceedings themselves.
Modern approaches to road safety are based on an obvious reality:
This philosophy is clearly reflected in the work of P(A)T – Prevención de Accidentes de Tráfico.
In its publication:
“Cuando una carretera bien diseñada puede salvar vidas”
P(A)T examines how the design of streets and roads influences road safety and discusses the Safe System approach, based on creating infrastructure capable of reducing the consequences of human error.
This idea connects directly with one of the main lessons of the David Pérez Sempere case.
It is right to demand responsible driving.
It is right to combat:
But none of this removes a parallel obligation:
Not every accident occurring on a public road automatically gives rise to public authority liability.
Each case must be assessed individually.
However, there are situations in which the conduct or omission of the authority responsible for the road should be carefully investigated.
These include the following.
A sufficiently serious pothole, sinkhole, subsidence or defect may alter the trajectory of a vehicle.
The risk can be particularly relevant for:
Relevant factors include:
The mere existence of a pothole does not automatically establish liability.
The key issue will be determining what specific influence the defect had on the accident.
A deteriorated road may present in many different ways:
If you have been involved in an accident in these circumstances, it may be advisable to ask a road accident and compensation lawyer to assess whether the public authority, a road maintenance company or another third party may be liable.
Signage may be decisive.
It is not always enough simply to establish that a physical sign existed.
It is necessary to examine whether the signage was:
Article 57 of the Spanish Road Traffic Act places responsibility on the road authority for road maintenance and for the installation and maintenance of appropriate road signs and markings.
An accident occurring at a bend, junction, roadworks or hazard that was inadequately signposted may justify both legal and technical investigation.
Bends may require specific measures depending on factors such as:
At certain locations, it may be necessary to examine:
The existence of previous accidents may be particularly important when assessing whether the authority knew or ought to have known about a risk.
This is one of the most important issues in certain run-off-road accidents.
A safety barrier may not necessarily prevent the vehicle from initially losing its trajectory.
But it can radically alter what happens afterwards.
It may prevent the vehicle from:
The effectiveness and extent of the restraint systems were among the issues examined in the proceedings concerning David Pérez Sempere’s accident.
Roadworks may create dangerous conditions when they are not properly managed or signposted.
Potential issues may include:
The Road Traffic Act itself establishes specific obligations regarding roadworks signage.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to examine potential liability on the part of:
Not every road is legally required to have artificial lighting.
However, lighting may become relevant when combined with other factors such as:
Each case must be assessed technically on its own facts.
Before bringing any claim, it is essential to correctly identify the authority responsible for the road and its maintenance.
Not all roads are owned or managed by the same public body.
Responsibility may lie with:
In the case of state-owned roads.
For example, the Government of Catalonia in relation to certain regional roads.
In relation to certain provincial roads.
In relation to streets, urban roads and other public areas falling within municipal responsibility.
Depending on how the service is organised, other parties may also be involved, including:
One of the first tasks of an Administrative Law lawyer is precisely to determine who had the legal duty to act at the specific location concerned.
Public authority liability has its constitutional basis in Article 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution and is currently regulated principally by Articles 32 et seq. of Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector.
Article 32 establishes the right of individuals to compensation from Public Administrations where they suffer damage to their property or rights as a consequence of the normal or abnormal operation of public services, provided that the damage was not caused by force majeure and the person does not have a legal duty to bear it.
For a claim to succeed, factors such as the following must be examined:
There must be genuine and actual loss or injury.
The damage must be identifiable in relation to a particular person or group.
It must be capable of financial valuation.
The victim must not have a legal duty to bear the loss.
The act or omission must be attributable to the operation of the public service.
There must be a legally sufficient causal relationship between the operation of the public service and the damage.
This final element is often one of the most technically complex issues.
For this reason, ASO Corporate has a specific practice area dedicated to public authority liability claims.
It is not enough to prove:
“The road was in poor condition.”
Nor is it enough to prove:
“There was an accident.”
The two must be legally connected.
That is the causal link.
The central question must be:
This is why these proceedings may require combined expertise in:
A claim of this nature should not be treated as a simple compensation form.
It should be built as a robust evidential case.
This question must be approached with particular care.
Most cases involving inadequate road maintenance, signage or road conservation are primarily analysed under Administrative Law and public authority liability.
The fact that there is a defect in a road does not automatically mean that a criminal offence has been committed.
However, in particularly serious cases it may also be necessary to assess whether the acts or omissions of specific individuals could have criminal relevance.
The Spanish Criminal Code, in Article 11, provides for certain circumstances in which an offence resulting in harm may be committed by omission where the person who failed to prevent the result was under a specific legal duty to act.
The Criminal Code also regulates negligent homicide and negligently causing injury.
Therefore, in an extremely serious accident or fatality, particularly where there are indications that a serious risk may have been known in advance, it may be necessary to investigate:
The Spanish Criminal Code establishes specific rules concerning Public Administrations.
Accordingly, where a possible criminal dimension arises, the analysis must, where appropriate, focus on the conduct or omission of specifically identified individuals.
Public officials, civil servants, public managers, technical professionals or other individuals with defined responsibilities could only incur criminal liability where all of the legal elements of the relevant offence are established.
Poor administrative management is not enough.
A road that could have been better designed is not enough.
A questionable decision is not enough.
There must be conduct with genuine criminal significance.
ASO Corporate also has a specialist Criminal Law practice.
Ángel Aso also conducts specialised criminal law work through the group’s dedicated website, Abogado Penalista Sabadell, particularly focused on complex criminal proceedings.
Where the facts justify it, it may therefore be necessary to assess together:
public authority liability + compensation + administrative litigation + possible individual criminal liability.
One of the greatest difficulties in these proceedings is that:
After the incident:
Early investigation is therefore essential.
ASO Corporate also provides a specific guide on what not to do after a road traffic accident, explaining some of the initial mistakes that can subsequently weaken a claim.
I WANT YOU TO REVIEW MY ACCIDENT
Do not photograph only the vehicle.
Where possible, document:
Video footage travelling through the relevant section of road may show geometry, visibility and context that cannot be appreciated from a single photograph.
This may be fundamental for reconstructing:
Witnesses should be identified and their contact details preserved as soon as possible.
In serious accidents, it should be considered whether the vehicle needs to be preserved or inspected before repair or disposal.
These can prove:
It may be necessary to request:
They can be extremely important.
If similar accidents have repeatedly occurred at the same location, it may be necessary to investigate:
The existence of previous accidents does not automatically establish liability.
However, it may constitute very relevant evidence concerning prior knowledge of a risk.
A later repair does not automatically amount to an admission of liability.
However, it may be relevant to investigate:
For this reason, the following may become particularly important:
Time limits are one of the most important issues.
As a general rule, Article 67 of Law 39/2015 provides for a one-year limitation period.
Where physical or psychological injury exists, the period begins from recovery or from determination of the extent of the permanent consequences.
Every case must be assessed individually.
However, one point is particularly important:
Even where there is still considerable time left legally, evidence may disappear much sooner.
The claim should properly identify and substantiate matters such as:
Law 39/2015 itself requires the claimant to specify the injuries suffered, the alleged causal relationship between the injury and the operation of the public service, and the financial assessment wherever possible.
A serious claim should not simply request compensation in generic terms.
For more detailed information about these proceedings, see our page on public authority liability claims.
It may then be necessary to bring proceedings before the Administrative Courts.
At that stage, the dispute is no longer considered solely by the Administration itself and becomes subject to judicial scrutiny.
The procedural strategy will depend on:
ASO Corporate has a dedicated Administrative and Public Law litigation practice for these types of claims.
The David Pérez Sempere case ultimately came before the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia.
Each case requires an individual assessment.
Depending on the circumstances, losses may include:
In our road accident and compensation practice, we assess the different categories of damage together so that a claim is not limited to only one part of the loss suffered.
Where an accident causes death, the assessment becomes particularly serious.
We are no longer talking merely about a vehicle or certain expenses.
We are talking about a life.
It is necessary to correctly identify:
In David’s case, Ester has publicly explained that her motivation was never limited to obtaining compensation.
Her aim has also been for David’s loss to help raise awareness and prevent similar accidents in the future.
Her testimony can be heard directly in the full interview on the David Pérez Sempere case.
The C-59 case is not ASO Corporate’s only experience involving damage connected with the operation of public services or public spaces.
Our firm also obtained a favourable decision against Alaior Town Council in relation to injuries suffered during a horse festival, another case in which safety, organisation, damage and public authority liability were essential issues.
The full case can be read here:
We obtained a judgment against Alaior Town Council for injuries suffered during the horse festival
Public authority liability is not limited to roads.
It may also arise in certain cases involving:
For these matters, see also our specialist page on falls and accidents in public spaces, supermarkets and commercial premises.
No judgment automatically makes a Public Administration liable for every accident.
Every case depends on its own facts and evidence.
However, the C-59 case has particular significance because it raises an issue affecting every road user:
Drivers.
Public authorities.
Engineers.
Technical professionals.
Managers.
Road maintenance companies.
Institutions.
All form part of the system.
The Safe System philosophy promoted by road safety organisations starts from the recognition that people can make mistakes and that infrastructure should be designed to prevent those mistakes from inevitably resulting in death or irreversible injury.
For further information about this approach, we recommend the P(A)T article:
When a well-designed road can save lives
Accidents involving public infrastructure require a different approach from a straightforward claim against an insurance company.
At ASO Corporate, we work across matters involving:
Our structure provides legal services from Barberà del Vallès, Sabadell and Terrassa, as well as Barcelona and other locations throughout the province.
We can also assess cases arising elsewhere in Catalonia and Spain depending on the nature of the proceedings.
You can find out more about the ASO Corporate professional team and review other real cases and legal guides published by the firm.
If you are looking for:
the first step is to examine technically what happened, who had the legal duty to act and what evidence exists.
It may be particularly important to investigate where there are indications involving:
This does not mean that liability automatically exists.
It means that:
1. Preserve photographs and videos immediately.
2. Identify the road and exact kilometre point as accurately as possible.
3. Obtain the police accident report.
4. Identify witnesses.
5. Preserve all medical documentation.
6. Do not allow relevant evidence to disappear without first assessing its importance.
7. Document all property damage.
8. Preserve invoices, payslips and evidence of financial losses.
9. Find out which public authority is responsible for the road.
10. Obtain legal advice before the road is repaired or modified.
We also recommend reading our guide:
What not to do after a road traffic accident
Taking action against a Public Administration can initially create a considerable sense of inequality.
The Administration has access to:
But the Administration is also subject to the law and to judicial control.
When the operation of a public service causes damage that is legally attributable to that service, the legal system provides mechanisms through which responsibility can be enforced.
The David Pérez Sempere case demonstrates that proceedings of this nature can reach the courts and that a serious, technical and persistent investigation may prove decisive.
Do not wait for the evidence to disappear.
Road accidents and compensation · Public authority liability · Administrative Law and litigation · Criminal Law
Barberà del Vallès · Sabadell · Terrassa · Barcelona · Catalonia
There may be liability if it can be established that the road surface defect had a relevant causal impact on the accident and the other legal requirements for public authority liability are satisfied.
A claim may be possible. It will be necessary to determine what signage was legally or technically required, how the location was actually signposted and what impact the deficiency had on the accident.
There may be liability depending on the characteristics of the location, the existing risk, the applicable technical standards and the causal relationship between the absence or inadequacy of the restraint system and the damage suffered.
Potentially, yes.
Driver responsibility does not automatically eliminate all possible liability on the part of the public authority.
The C-59 case is precisely an example of shared or concurrent responsibility.
In exceptional circumstances, this possibility may need to be examined in relation to specific individuals.
Not every administrative failure amounts to a criminal offence.
There must be a criminally relevant act or omission, a specific legal duty, the degree of negligence required under criminal law and a causal relationship with the resulting death or injury.
For this analysis, see our Criminal Law practice and the specialist website Abogado Penalista Sabadell.
The Spanish Criminal Code contains specific rules excluding certain Public Administrations from the general regime of corporate criminal liability.
A separate question is whether specific individuals may incur personal criminal liability where all the legal requirements are established.
As a general rule, the limitation period is one year, subject to specific rules concerning physical or psychological injury.
Each case should be assessed individually.
The authority responsible for the road or public service: Central Government, Autonomous Community, Provincial Council, Local Council or another competent entity, depending on the circumstances.
Not always.
However, in technically complex accidents, accident reconstruction specialists, engineers, medical experts or professionals from other disciplines may prove decisive.
This does not automatically prevent a claim.
However, it may make proving the case more difficult.
Photographs, police reports, witnesses, historical images, administrative records, maintenance contracts, project documents and technical reports may then need to be examined.
Yes.
It may be relevant when assessing whether the public authority previously knew about a particular risk, although by itself it does not automatically establish liability.
Watch the full interview with Ester Sempere and Ángel Aso
When a well-designed road can save lives
Judgment No. 656/2026
Administrative Litigation Chamber, Fourth Section
11 May 2026
Proceedings 1554/2023
ECLI: ES:TSJCAT:2026:3972
CENDOJ: 08019330042026100367
ROJ: STSJ CAT 3972:2026
Spanish Road Traffic, Motor Vehicle Circulation and Road Safety Act
Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector
Law 39/2015 on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations
Founding Partner and Legal Director of ASO Corporate.
Lawyer practising in Criminal Law, Administrative Law, road accident claims, damages claims and complex litigation.
Lead lawyer in the public authority liability proceedings concerning the David Pérez Sempere case against the Government of Catalonia.
You can review other proceedings and legal resources in our section of ASO Corporate real cases and legal guides.
More information
