Bell v London Borough of Havering [2010] EWCA Civ 689 (27 May 2010)

Bell v London Borough of Havering [2010] EWCA Civ 689 (27 May 2010)

The trial judge was entitled to accept the claimant's account of the accident, the planter with a four-inch drop constituted a foreseeable danger for which the council was liable under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, and the assessment of one third contributory negligence was within the range open to the judge.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 689
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bell; Respondent/claimant: London Borough of Havering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Highway Maintenance Liability, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Credibility of Witnesses, Section 41 Highways Act 1980
Tort Personal Injury Local Government Law Highway Maintenance Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Credibility of Witnesses Section 41 Highways Act 1980

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bell

Appellant/defendant

London Borough of Havering

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's account of the accident was credible
  2. 2 Whether the planter constituted a dangerous defect for which the council was liable under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of contributory negligence was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the claimant's account of the accident, the planter with a four-inch drop constituted a foreseeable danger for which the council was liable under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, and the assessment of one third contributory negligence was within the range open to the judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant with damages to be assessed subject to one third reduction for contributory negligence