Search Mobile

collapse

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

Email address

Password

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

Forgotten your password?

collapseSign

Home

Insights

Resources

Blogs

Trial win offers solace to highway authorities facing winter maintenance claims

trial win offers solace to highway authorities facing winter maintenance claims

25 July 2014

Mr Yew sought damages against Gloucestershire County Council after slipping on ice on an untreated footway in Tetbury. He alleged that the council was in breach of Section 41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980.

We advised the county council that this was a case to fight to trial.

After accepting that the claimant had slipped as alleged, the judge concluded that:

the council has a carefully prepared and reasonable adverse weather policy
it was reasonable to prioritise the roadways over a footpath
in days of limited resources, it is inevitable that one cannot do everything and in this instance reasonably practicable steps had been taken.

The council therefore had a Section 58 defence and the claimant’s case failed.

This is the first reported trial win for a highway authority facing a footway Section 41(1A) claim. It demonstrates the kind of evidence that highway authorities need to produce to succeed at court and provides helpful guidance for how courts should approach these cases.

related opinions

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog