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

one personal hygiene mishap, two tripping accidents witnessed and three tripping accidents suffered

4 July 2008

That was the record of the witness to the highway trip of the claimant in Cenet v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. What do you have to do to convince a court that a highway tripping claim is fraudulent and can a pedestrian expect the same standard of maintenance on a carriageway as on a footway? These were the questions that exercised the court.

The flexi-time employment records showed that the witness was working at the time he claimed to have seen the claimants accident. His explanation was that he had suffered a personal hygiene accident at work and been allowed to return home to Chatham Road to change his clothes without "clocking off".

In addition to the claimants accident he had witnessed a similar accident on Chatham Road - two years after the claimants accident. Listed for trial at the same time as Jeanette Cenets accident, that claimant had discontinued on the day before trial.

The witness had submitted claims in respect of three highway tripping accidents - each three years apart.

However, the Judge at trial had still found the claimant to be credible, accepted her evidence and found in her favour. The appeal Judge did not overturn the finding on credibility but did reverse the finding that the defect was dangerous.

This was a trip that occurred on the carriageway not the footway and the appeal Judge (contrary to the trial Judge) found that a depression that was greater than the footway intervention level - of 25 mm - but less than the carriageway intervention level - of 40 mm - was not, in the circumstances, dangerous.

So can you always be confident that if a pedestrian trips on a carriageway defect less than 40 mm it will be held by the court not to be dangerous? Unfortunately no. There may be special features such as high pedestrian traffic as a result of adjacent shops, schools or other public amenities that create an exception to the general rule. However, if the defect is long standing, has attracted no complaints or other accidents and looks on the photographs like a minor defect, indistinguishable from the type of defect normally seen on a carriageway, then it is unlikely to be found to be dangerous.

The case is helpful in that - like the old case of Ford v Liverpool Corporation - it establishes that different rules apply for a pedestrian tripper on the carriageway than on the footway. The risk management lesson is to make sure that highway inspectors do not apply the carriageway intervention criteria too rigidly and are alive to a softening of the standard in areas of high pedestrian traffic on the carriageway. And, if nothing else, you can rejoice in the fact that the accident prone pedestrians of Chatham Road do not fall within the boundary of your highway authority, unless you are responsible for a street with more accident prone residents than the Chatham Road crew, in which case we would like to hear from you!

training and events

24Oct

Claims Club Manchester office

We will be discussing the Human Rights Act, school claims and a legal update on 'hot topics'.

View event

12Nov

Learning from deaths: overcoming barriers to learning in order to reduce harm Exeter office

Exploring the barriers to successful implementation of the Learning from Deaths Guidance and a practical focus on what you can do within your organisation to help overcome those obstacles to successfully implement change and improve patient safety.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

public matters - October 2019

This month includes government outsourcing, amending contracts, land registration 2025 target for public sector, inquests, and public procurement with SMEs, Brexit and the mafia.

View

Legal updates

EIDO healthcare consent review

Browne Jacobson are pleased to have worked in association with Eido to contribute to the Eido third edition Annual Consent Review including Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery, examine notable recent cases and discuss key learnings.

View

Upcoming webinars

SMCR - making it work for your business

In this webinar we will explain the practical steps that firms should take in order to be compliant with SMCR from 9 December 2019.

View

Legal updates

Sexual assault in the workplace: opportunity alone is not sufficient connection for vicarious liability

Browne Jacobson LLP were recently instructed by the defendant in a sexual assault claim in which the High Court had to carefully consider the sufficient connection test for vicarious liability to apply.

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