Smithson v Lynn & Anor [2020] EWHC 2517 (QB) (16 October 2020)

Smithson v Lynn & Anor [2020] EWHC 2517 (QB) (16 October 2020)

The Second Defendant breached its statutory duty under s41(1A) Highways Act 1980 by applying an unduly restrictive and undocumented 'exceptional circumstances' test to ad hoc gritting requests, failing to respond adequately to two police reports of treacherous conditions and accidents on Rascelf Road. The Second Defendant did not prove it was not reasonably practicable to spot grit the road. The breach caused the accident, as a reasonable response would have identified and treated the hazardous section. The First Defendant was not at fault, so is entitled to a full indemnity from the Second Defendant.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2517
Parties
Claimant: Michael Smithson; First Defendant: Bradley Lynn; Second Defendant: North Yorkshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Contribution/indemnity Claim (road Traffic Accident) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the First Defendant on the Part 20 claim for indemnity against the Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
Highways Liability, Statutory Duty, Reasonable Practicability, Contribution and Indemnity, Road Traffic Accident, Local Authority Liability
Tort Law Public Law Highways Liability Statutory Duty Reasonable Practicability Contribution and Indemnity Road Traffic Accident Local Authority Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Smithson

Claimant

Bradley Lynn

First Defendant

North Yorkshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contribution/indemnity Claim (road Traffic Accident) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant (highway authority) breached its statutory duty under s41(1A) Highways Act 1980 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along Rascelf Road was not endangered by ice
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant is entitled to a contribution or indemnity from the Second Defendant under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to grit Rascelf Road in response to police requests was a breach of duty

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant breached its statutory duty under s41(1A) Highways Act 1980 by applying an unduly restrictive and undocumented 'exceptional circumstances' test to ad hoc gritting requests, failing to respond adequately to two police reports of treacherous conditions and accidents on Rascelf Road. The Second Defendant did not prove it was not reasonably practicable to spot grit the road. The breach caused the accident, as a reasonable response would have identified and treated the hazardous section. The First Defendant was not at fault, so is entitled to a full indemnity from the Second Defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the First Defendant on the Part 20 claim for indemnity against the Second Defendant.

Orders

  • The Second Defendant is to indemnify the First Defendant in respect of the settlement sum paid to the Claimant.
  • The Second Defendant is to pay the First Defendant's costs of the Part 20 proceedings.