Street Equipment

• Published date: 30 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Author: Mr Dr. Robert Whittock

Liability under s.41 Highways Act 1980 only arises where there has been a failure to maintain the 'fabric' of the highway. Liability for street apparatus such as a water stop tap cover falls within s.41 Highways Act 1980, whereas liability for street furniture such as a road sign or a safety barrier will fall outside s.41 Highways Act 1980 ('the Act') and be determined solely by the common law principles of negligence.¹

Street Apparatus

In David Berry v (1) Vale of Glamorgan (2) Welsh Water [2018] 4 WLUK 623 the claimant brought a claim for damages for personal injury sustained when he tripped on a defective water stop tap cover. Despite the defective cover being found to be a dangerous defect under s.41 of the Act the claim was dismissed against both the highways authority and water company.

Section 58 Defence

A visual inspection, as provided by the highway authorities policy, carried out less than three months pre-accident did not identify the defective cover whereas a physical inspection would have identified that when stepped upon the cover tipped creating a tripping hazard. Prior to the date of the accident there were no complaints of the defective cover. HHJ Timothy Petts found that the highways authority had complied with its policy and in so doing had taken such care as was reasonably required to secure that the highway was safe and thus could rely upon its defence under s.58 Highways Act 1980.

HHJ Timothy Petts commented:

'It is a matter of common-sense and trite law that not every risk requires precautions to guard against that risk. Here, I find that the risk of injury occurring on defective equipment which could not be seen to be defective save with a physical examination is a risk of a very low order...it would in my view, be completely disproportionate to require checking of all items of equipment in the way that is being said [physical inspection of each cover]'.

Negligence

The water company discharged the duty it owed to the claimant by relying upon a reactive system of dealing with complaints from members of the public or otherwise passed to the water company. The system was found to be reasonable given the number of claims, the level and nature of the risks and the number of likely problems that there would be in any event. Requiring the water company to carry out its own inspections was found to be a disproportionate duplication of effort.

Street Furniture

In Price v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] 7 WLUK 167 the claimant was...