References: [1979] RTR 369
Ratio: The plaintiff was a passenger in a car on a major road which who was injured in a collision with a car which emerged from a minor road. The driver of the second car, who was agreed (as between the two cars) to be 90% responsible, joined the County Council (as highway authority) as a third party, alleging it had negligently removed and failed to repaint the warning lines which customarily indicated to drivers that they were entering upon a major road.
Held: By removing the lines, the council had created a hazard. By painting the lines the council had created an expectation on the part of users of the main road that there would be lines to warn people on side roads that they were entering a major road.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Weatherhill v Pearce ChD (Times 07-Nov-94, Ind Summary 05-Dec-94)
The testatrix had signed her name by the attestation clause before it was witnessed.
Held: A pre-signed will, on which the testator’s earlier signature was then acknowledged before a witness, and if there was appropriate evidence of her . . - Cited – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA (Bailii, Times 15-Nov-04, [2004] EWCA Civ 1440)
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 February 2017
Ref: 195691
The post Bird v Pearce: CA 1979 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.