0370 270 6000

Drake v Torbay Council, DJ

16 July 2002
The issues

Highways – moss – Goodes -v- East Sussex County Council.

The facts

The Claimant was walking his dog one morning on a route he knew well. It was raining and he curtailed his walk. He set off home, returning by means of steps between two roads. There was a handrail. There was also moss on the steps. He slipped on the moss, twisting his knee.

The decision

1. The steps were part of the highway maintained at public expense. Moss was not part of the fabric of the highway. It grew in silt, which had been deposited on the highway. There was therefore an analogy between this case and Goodes -v- East Sussex County Council.

2. There is a duty to maintain the fabric of the highway in good repair. In Goodes it was held that that duty did not extend to removing accumulations of ice and snow that were on the highway and not part of the fabric of the highway. There was an analogy between ice and snow and moss. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


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.


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