@
rsa2712 Problem is the local Council had a get out of jail card they can use.
(1)In an action against a highway authority in respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain a highway maintainable at the public expense it is a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic.
(2)For the purposes of a defence under subsection (1) above, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters:—
(a)the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;
(b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic;
(c)the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway;
(d)whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway;
(e)where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed;
but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions.
(3)This section binds the Crown.
Highways act 1980 Section 58.
And the courts have made decisions that set precedent over the years.
- "Everyone must take into account of the fact there maybe unevenness here and there." Meggs v Liverpool Corporation 1968.
- "A highway is not to be criticised by the standards of a bowling green." (Littler v Liverpool Corporation 1968).
- The best illustration is in Mills v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 1992, where the court said: "It is important that our law should not impose unreasonably high standards, otherwise scare resources should be diverted from situations where maintenance and repair of the highway is more urgently needed."
- "This branch of the law ought to represent a sensible balance of compromises between private and public interest."
