Highway Authority Not Responsible for Catastrophic M25 Lorry Crash

Those involved in catastrophic road accidents frequently point the finger of blame at potholes or other defects in the road surface. As one case showed, however, it can be an uphill task to pin responsibility for such accidents on highway authorities.

The case concerned an accident which…

Sep 01, 2022

Jack b ei0a7nxpvs8 unsplash 1024x683

Those involved in catastrophic road accidents frequently point the finger of blame at potholes or other defects in the road surface. As one case showed, however, it can be an uphill task to pin responsibility for such accidents on highway authorities.

The case concerned an accident which befell an articulated lorry whilst works were in progress to convert a stretch of the M25 into a smart motorway. The lorry was using the hard shoulder when its wheels strayed onto the verge and over a filter drain. The driver steered sharply and applied emergency braking.

The lorry tipped onto its side and slewed across all three lanes of the motorway. It crashed into the central barrier, which gave way. Three construction workers were trapped in the wreckage, one of whom suffered grievous crush injuries to his legs, both of which had to be amputated. The lorry driver’s employer later settled the construction worker’s personal injury claim for a sum of approximately £8 million.

That was not the end of the matter, however, in that the employer later sought to recover part of that sum from the highway authority which bears responsibility for maintaining the M25. It contended that the accident was, at least in part, caused by a defect in the drain that presented a danger or trap to ordinary road users.

Dismissing the contribution claim, however, the High Court noted that the drain had been constructed following best practice. It found that a trough or rut in the verge, which was said to have been caused by the defective drain, was not present prior to the accident. The damage to the verge observed in post-accident police photographs was almost exclusively caused by the lorry’s nearside wheels.

The Court acknowledged that highway authorities should anticipate mistakes being made by careless drivers and that errant vehicles straying onto the verge whilst the roadworks were in progress was a likely event. It was not, however, persuaded that the lorry driver’s actions in braking hard and steering sharply to his offside amounted to ordinary use of the highway. The unprecedented circumstances of the accident represented an extreme and rare occurrence which went beyond the normal run of events that the highway authority could be expected to foresee.

Disability Discrimination – Diabetic Cake Shop Worker Compensated

Discrimination against disabled employees is a social evil with which Employment Tribunals (ETs) will have no truck. In one case, a cake shop worker who was dismissed because of her diabetes was awarded thousands of pounds in compensation. The woman’s condition meant that, without daily insulin injections, she would suffer a hypoglycaemic episode and fall into a coma. At the date of her dismissal, she was in stage B renal failure. In sacking her by text, her manager expressed the view that she…

Waitress Accused of Stealing from the Till Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

A genuine and honest belief that an employee is guilty of gross misconduct is not, by itself, a viable defence to an unfair dismissal claim. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding compensation to a restaurant waitress who was sacked after being accused of pilfering money from the till. On reviewing the restaurant’s accounts, its owner said he discovered that till receipts were down by modest but round figures on a number of days. Referring to his diary entries, he asserted that…

Unfair Dismissal and Mitigation of Loss – Guideline Tribunal Decision

If you have been unfairly dismissed, you are entitled to fair compensation. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling showed, the amount of your award may well be substantially reduced if you fail to make reasonable efforts to cut your financial losses by obtaining alternative employment. The case concerned an airport passenger services operative, aged in his 40s, who was the sole breadwinner for his family of five. He was sacked after being accused of bullying, harassing and…