PI Brief Update

28 February 2011 - PI Practitioner

The onus on a Highway Authority must not be oppressive:

“Uneven surfaces and differences in level between flagstones of about an inch may cause a pedestrian temporarily off balance to trip and stumble, but such characteristics have to be accepted, A highway is not to be judged by the standards of a bowling green.”

This generally gave rise to the traditional view that defects of less than an inch should not generally be actionable. This case was distinguished by:

Pitman v. Southern Electricity Board [1978] 3 All ER 901

A defect of 1/8” (approximately 3mm) in depth was held to be actionable. A metal plate by altering the condition and level of the pavement had introduced a new and unexpected hazard which constituted a potential danger to users of the pavement, thus the Judge at first instance had been entitled to find the Defendant liable.

Mills v. Barnsley MBC [1992] PIQR 291

In the leading case in these type of claims, the Court of Appeal said that the three things a claimant must prove in order to succeed in an action under section 41 are:

1. The highway was in such a condition that danger from its use might reasonably have been anticipated in the ordinary course of human affairs;

2. The dangerous condition was caused by a failure to maintain; and

3. The injury resulted from that failure.

Pridham v. Hemel Hempstead Corporation (1970) 69 LGR 523

If a highway authority had, after sufficiently careful consideration, adopted a system of inspection and maintenance that had been properly implemented then it would be likely to make out the statutory defence under section 58 of the Highways Act.