There Is No Duty to Maintain Pedestrian Thoroughfares in Perfect Condition

Highway authorities and private landowners alike are under a legal duty to address tripping hazards so that pedestrians can move around in reasonable safety. As a High Court ruling made plain, however, that is not a counsel of perfection.

The case concerned a 64-year-old woman who…

Sep 13, 2022

Someone riding their bike on a quiet city street 1024x683

The case concerned a 64-year-old woman who suffered a nasty fall whilst making her way back to her car after purchasing a newspaper from a local shop. She launched a personal injury claim against the owner of the shop’s forecourt and the local highway authority, which was responsible for maintaining the adjoining pavement.

Ruling on the matter, the Court found that she tripped over a depression close to a white line that marked the border between the forecourt and the pavement. On the basis of expert evidence, it concluded that the depression was a maximum of 27 millimetres in depth and had a minimum diameter of 500 millimetres.

Dismissing the woman’s claim, the Court noted evidence that the depression had been present for almost five years prior to her fall. The area was a busy pedestrian thoroughfare, yet there was no record of any previous complaints concerning the depression or any other accidents of a similar nature.

The depression was not particularly significant and the highway authority’s code of practice indicated that it would not have been viewed as a defect requiring remedial action. There was no requirement to maintain the forecourt or pavement in a perfect condition, without any slightly raised edges or depressions.

The Court noted that it would not be realistic or practicable to impose such a high standard of care. At the time of the accident, the forecourt was reasonably safe for pedestrian use. The pavement was not in a dangerous condition and was reasonably passable by those making ordinary use of it on foot.

EAT Reinstates Claims Struck Out for Failure to Comply With Order

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an appeal against the striking out of a man’s claims after he failed to comply with a case management order, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had failed to consider whether a fair trial was still possible and that an unless order should have been made instead. The man had brought a number of claims including disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation. The ET considered that it was not…

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…

Employment Dispute Settlement Precludes Subsequent Victimisation Claim

The vast majority of employment cases end in compromise, thus doing away with the need for a public hearing. As a Court of Appeal ruling made plain, however, great professional care is required in drafting settlement agreements in order to ensure that they do not themselves become the focus of further dispute. The case concerned a man whose race discrimination complaint against a company for which he worked for about a month was compromised on confidential terms. He accepted a sum of money in…