Bell v London Borough of Havering

Bell v London Borough of Havering

The trial judge was entitled to accept the claimant's account of the accident, find the planter constituted a foreseeable danger under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, and assess contributory negligence at one third; no error of law or fact justifying appellate intervention was demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bell; Respondent/claimant: London Borough of Havering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Highway Maintenance
Tort Statutory Duty Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Highway Maintenance

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

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 judge's assessment of contributory negligence was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the claimant's account of the accident, find the planter constituted a foreseeable danger under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, and assess contributory negligence at one third; no error of law or fact justifying appellate intervention was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment for claimant subject to one third contributory negligence