Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 36 (02 February 2017)

Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 36 (02 February 2017)

The council's system for responding to reports of potentially dangerous highway defects was inadequate because it failed to provide for any out-of-hours evaluation or response except for reports from emergency services. This built-in flaw meant the council did not take such care as was reasonably required in all the circumstances, and thus could not rely on the section 58 defence. Lack of resources is not a valid justification for this systemic deficiency.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 36
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Lee Michael Crawley; Appellant / Defendant: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim for Damages (negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Circuit Judge's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Highway Authority Liability, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Section 41 and 58 Highways Act 1980, Defences to Highway Claims
Tort Law Administrative Law Highway Authority Liability Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Section 41 and 58 Highways Act 1980 Defences to Highway Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 3 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

Personal Injury Claim for Damages (negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Circuit Judge's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council's system for responding to reported highway defects satisfied the statutory defence under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether lack of out-of-hours evaluation for reported defects (except from emergency services) was reasonable under section 58
  3. 3 Whether resource constraints justify delay in response to reported dangerous defects

Ratio Decidendi

The council's system for responding to reports of potentially dangerous highway defects was inadequate because it failed to provide for any out-of-hours evaluation or response except for reports from emergency services. This built-in flaw meant the council did not take such care as was reasonably required in all the circumstances, and thus could not rely on the section 58 defence. Lack of resources is not a valid justification for this systemic deficiency.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal allowed at circuit judge level is upheld
  • District judge's dismissal of the claim is set aside