Lee Crawley was out on an evening jog (January) in Barnsley when his foot when into a large pothole, causing him to fall and suffer a severe ankle injury.
The pothole in question had been reported to the local Council on the day before Lee’s accident (a Friday) at 4.20pm. Despite the passage of over 24 hours, the highway inspectors had failed to take any action to repair it.
Mr Crawley alleged that the reason for his fall was the Council’s negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980. He claimed damages accordingly.
At first instance, the Judge found that the Council had available to it a defence under the 1980 Act – namely, that it had taken reasonable care in the circumstances to ensure that the part of the highway in question was not dangerous for traffic.
This decision was then reversed on appeal.
The court emphasised that there is no justification for dealing with complaints made on a Friday any differently from those made on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
The Council appealed this decision but the action was dismissed.
The court considered it significant that the caller who had contacted the Council on Friday 27th January had described the road as having “deep potholes” that created a risk of damage to his vehicle – this should have flagged a need for immediate inspection.
The Council’s present system of only dealing with complaints made out of hours when they were reported by a member of the emergency services, was inadequate.
A link to the full decision can be found here.
Related Articles
MW v Wilkinson – Driver not liable in child pedestrian accident
A tragic road traffic accident involving a 5-year-old boy resulted in serious injuries, but the court found the driver was not liable. This case highlights when drivers may – and
Atkinson v Kennedy – Driver not liable in child pedestrian case
Atkinson v Kennedy demonstrates that even in serious child pedestrian accidents, liability is not automatic. The Court held the collision was unavoidable despite the driver exceeding the speed limit.
Gadsby v Hayes | Child pedestrian toucan crossing case
A High Court case examining whether a driver should reduce speed to 10 mph at a toucan crossing. Despite serious injuries to a child pedestrian, the court found no negligence.
Is it worth 5 minutes of your time?
A quick phone call allows us to ask you a few questions about what happened to you and determine whether we can help.
This form collects your name and phone number so that we can contact you. Check out our Privacy Policy for more detail on how we store, process and protect your submitted data. If you choose not to consent, please use an alternative contact method shown on our Contact page.