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.

Treating Every Employee in the Same Way May Itself Be Discriminatory

Anti-discrimination laws are often viewed as requiring employers to treat all their staff in the same way. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, the positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to cater for disabled workers’ needs may require them to be treated more favourably than their colleagues. The case concerned a quality controller in a food packing plant who was disabled by back pain and depression. He worked 12-hour night shifts in the refrigerated plant and was on…

Employment Contracts and the Implication of Terms by Custom and Practice

Workers wishing to discern the extent of their entitlements need usually do no more than read their employment contracts. As one case showed, the occasions when further rights are to be implied into a contract, having been established by custom and practice, are few and far between. The case concerned a claim by 27 ex-employees of a food company to enhanced redundancy payments. Their contracts did not expressly give them a right to such payments, but they argued that the company and others in…

Agency Workers Have No Right to Apply for Vacant Permanent Positions

Agency workers have a right to be informed by those who hire them of permanent positions that become vacant – but are they also entitled to apply for such posts? Following an important test case, the Court of Appeal has answered that question decisively in the negative. The case concerned a worker who was employed by an agency that was owned by, and provided staff exclusively to, Royal Mail in order to enable the latter to react to fluctuations in demand for labour. When permanent positions…