References: Times 08-Mar-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 467, [1994] 1 WLR 1124
Links: lip
Coram: Nourse, Kennedy and Roch L.JJ
Ratio: A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The Highway Authority could be liable in negligence for failing to achieve a remedy to a situation which it knew to be dangerous, but that no additional duty was owed, under its statutory duty to maintain the highway, to execute works on private land. Kennedy LJ ‘I agree with the judge that the statutory duty to maintain the highway does not extend to work on land not forming part of the highway. There is no definition of highway in the Act of 1980 beyond that in section 328(1), where it is defined as meaning ‘the whole or a part of a highway, other than a ferry or waterway,’ but the common law definition is that a highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage. It seems to me that despite what is contained in the other statutory provisions to which we have been referred it would be stretching the meaning of both ‘highway’ and ‘maintain’ if this court were to say that in order to comply with its duty to maintain the highway authority had to remove an obstruction to visibility situated on adjoining land. In my judgment sections 79 and 154 are merely sections which enable the highway authority to carry out functions which go beyond the scope of section 41. Accordingly I conclude that the judge was right not to find any relevant breach of statutory duty.’
Statutes: Highways Act 1980 41(1) 328(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Considered – Haydon v Kent County Council CA ([1978] QB 343, [1978] 2 All ER 97)
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . . - Considered – Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL (lip, [1978] AC 728, [1977] CLY 2030, [1977] 2 All ER 492, Bailii, [1977] UKHL 4)
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . . - Considered – Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL ([1991] 1 AC 398, Times 27-Jul-90, [1990] 2 All ER 908, Bailii, [1991] UKHL 2)
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . . - Distinguished – East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL ([1941] AC 74, Bailii, [1940] UKHL 3)
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . . - Distinguished – Sheppard v Glossop Corporation CA ([1921] 3 KB 132)
. .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL (Gazette 25-Sep-96, Times 26-Jul-96, [1996] AC 923, Bailii, [1996] UKHL 15, [1996] 3 All ER 801, [1996] 3 WLR 389)
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . . - Cited – Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited QBD ([2003] EWHC 2450 (QB), Bailii)
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty. - Cited – Kane v New Forest District Council CA ([2002] 1 WLR 312, [2001] EWCA Civ 878, [2002] LTL 12 April 2002, Bailii)
A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the . . - Cited – Thoburn v Northumberland County Council CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 607)
The claimant alleged that the defendant by allowing a flood across a road not to be cleared was in breach of their statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: Though the blockage was not entirely on the Highway, the nature and extent of it was . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10 May 2020
Ref: 89578 br>
The post Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party): CA 16 Feb 1994 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.