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.

Cooling Off Periods and Retraction of Oral Resignations – Guideline Ruling

Large employers often have ‘cooling off’ policies in place which address the common situation of employees orally announcing their resignation in a stressful moment and subsequently having second thoughts. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, such polices, once adopted, must be honoured. The case concerned a supermarket worker who was under strain at home due to her onerous caring responsibilities for sick and elderly relatives. During an understaffed night shift, she became…

Whistleblowing Nurse’s Dismissal ‘Grossly Unfair’, Tribunal Rules

There are few things more serious in an employment context than sacking a whistleblower for performing a valuable public service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a highly regarded nurse who was treated grossly unfairly for doing what she considered to be her duty. The nurse had an unblemished employment record stretching to 38 years and had received commendations for her leadership skills, positivity and enthusiasm. On a number of occasions, she expressed…

Dismissal of ‘Anti-Zionist’ Council Employee Ruled Unfair

Employers may come under external pressure to take disciplinary action against an employee, but that is all the more reason to follow a scrupulously fair procedure. The point was made by the case of a council employee who became the focus of media attention after participating in a demonstration outside Parliament. The man worked in the council’s environmental health department. His role was not considered politically sensitive and he was free to attend demonstrations and to state his political…