Valentine v Transport for London & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1358 (07 December 2010)
Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 does not require highway authorities to remove surface-lying material such as gravel or debris; the duty is limited to maintaining the structure and fabric of the highway. The claim against TfL was therefore bound to fail. However, the claim against Hounslow should not be struck out at this stage because it is arguable that negligent cleaning operations could have created or exacerbated a hazard, amounting to a positive act of negligence rather than mere omission.
- Citation
- [2010] EWCA Civ 1358
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Judith Valentine; Defendant/respondent (1st Defendant): Transport for London; Defendant/respondent (2nd Defendant): The London Borough of Hounslow
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at Central London County Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as against TfL; appeal allowed as against Hounslow.
- Legal Topics
- Highway Authority Liability, Statutory Duty Under Highways Act 1980, Negligence, Omissions and Acts in Tort, Fatal Accidents Act Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Judith Valentine
Claimant/appellant
Transport for London
Defendant/respondent (1st Defendant)
The London Borough of Hounslow
Defendant/respondent (2nd Defendant)
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at Central London County Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Does section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 impose a duty on highway authorities to remove surface-lying material such as gravel or debris?
- 2 Can a local authority (Hounslow) incur liability in negligence for the manner in which it undertakes road cleaning operations?
Ratio Decidendi
Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 does not require highway authorities to remove surface-lying material such as gravel or debris; the duty is limited to maintaining the structure and fabric of the highway. The claim against TfL was therefore bound to fail. However, the claim against Hounslow should not be struck out at this stage because it is arguable that negligent cleaning operations could have created or exacerbated a hazard, amounting to a positive act of negligence rather than mere omission.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as against TfL; appeal allowed as against Hounslow.
Orders
- Claim against TfL remains struck out.
- Claim against Hounslow reinstated and may proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment