Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

The council's system for responding to reports of potentially serious highway defects outside working hours was inadequate because it failed to provide for any evaluation of such reports unless made by emergency services, thus failing the section 58 defence. The appeal was dismissed and the claimant's claim was allowed.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Lee Michael Crawley; Appellant / Defendant: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Highway Authority Liability, Section 41 Highways Act 1980, Section 58 Highways Act 1980, Negligence, Duty of Care, Defences to Statutory Duty
Tort Law Statutory Duty Highway Authority Liability Section 41 Highways Act 1980 Section 58 Highways Act 1980 Negligence Duty of Care Defences to Statutory Duty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Michael Crawley

Claimant / Respondent

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council had a valid defence under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 for failing to repair a pothole before the claimant's injury
  2. 2 Adequacy of the council's system for responding to reported highway defects outside normal working hours

Ratio Decidendi

The council's system for responding to reports of potentially serious highway defects outside working hours was inadequate because it failed to provide for any evaluation of such reports unless made by emergency services, thus failing the section 58 defence. The appeal was dismissed and the claimant's claim was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim allowed
  • District judge's judgment set aside