0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

8 February 2001
The issues

Exercise Of Statutory Duty To Promote Road Safety – Discretion

The facts

The Claimant had been involved in a road traffic accident in March 1992 when driving across the junction of two roads. The Claimant had passed two give way signs situated at each side of the mouth of the junction. The Claimant alleged the Council should have provided additional advance warning to that provided of the fact that he was required to give way to traffic. At first instance the Judge concluded that the Council owed no duty to the Claimant either under statute or common law and if the Council had owed a duty, the duty had not been breached.

The decision

The Claimant’s case on appeal was confined to the contention that a common law duty of care should be superimposed upon the statutory duty under Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 39 was couched in mandatory terms that left a considerable degree of discretion to the local authority.

It did not identify the intervals at which the programme of measures designed to promote road safety had to be prepared or carried out or the frequency of the programmes.

The duty was no more than a target duty since it did no more than require the Council to exercise its powers in the manners it considered appropriate. As far as Section 39 was concerned there might be circumstances of an exceptional nature where a common law liability could arise. It would be necessary to show that the default of the authority fell outside the ambit of discretion given to the authority by deception. In other words the authority would have had to have acted wholly unreasonably. Absent that scale of behaviour, the Council would owe no duty of care pursuant to a common law duty running in parallel with or superimposed upon the provisions of Section 39.

There was no policy reason for excluding the duty. All that would be required to avoid liability for the failure to take measures was to establish that measures were rationally not considered to be appropriate.

Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up