Maguire v Lancashire County Council
The trial judge correctly identified the legal test for dangerousness but misapplied it to the facts; the uncontradicted evidence and photographs demonstrated the path was dangerous at the material time, and the lack of previous accidents was at best neutral. The appeal is allowed on liability.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Kenneth Maguire; Defendant/respondent: Lancashire County Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 November 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant on liability; matter remitted for assessment of quantum.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Highway Authority Liability, Dangerous Highways, Breach of Statutory Duty
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenneth Maguire
Claimant/appellant
Lancashire County Council
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the condition of the footpath constituted a danger to pedestrians under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the path was not dangerous and dismissing the claim
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly identified the legal test for dangerousness but misapplied it to the facts; the uncontradicted evidence and photographs demonstrated the path was dangerous at the material time, and the lack of previous accidents was at best neutral. The appeal is allowed on liability.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant on liability; matter remitted for assessment of quantum.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs here and below
- Judgment for the claimant on the issue of liability
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