Compensation Awarded To Elderly Gentleman Due To Road Defect
Our Client, an elderly gentleman, was walking home from the shops in Dudley. As he reached a side road he crossed at the point where the pavement was dropped and had raised bumps, so that those with poor eyesight could identify the crossing point.
Halfway across the carriageway he tripped due to a defect in the road, suffering a fracture to his tibia. The defect was 3cm deep.
His injury, fortunately, healed without complications and he enjoyed an uneventful recovery over a period of 9 months. His claim was valued at between £7500 and £8500.
We brought a claim against the Council alleging negligence in their failure to maintain the road. The Council defended the matter. Liability was never admitted and proceedings were issued. The Council relied upon S58 Highways Act 1980 in their defence. They had inspected the road 5 weeks prior to the accident and determined that there was a defect but that it did not constitute a danger. The defect was repaired, on a non urgent basis, after the accident was reported. The council’s maintenance standards indicated that a defect on the highway had to be 4cm or deeper to be considered a danger. The depth of a defect on a walkway considered to be a danger, was 2cm or more.
We argued that as this was a designated crossing point the level of maintenance required was that of a walkway, regardless of the fact that the defect was on the road, not the pavement. We obtained the statement of a witness who confirmed the road had been in that state for some time and that she felt it was a danger. We relied on the case of Idowu v O’Hagan, which was a similar case regarding a trip on a designated crossing. The Defendant was unmoved and ran the case towards trial with no offers.
The Defendant eventually produced two witnesses, former employees of the Defendant, one of whom was to be flown back from Spain for the trial. Both witnesses gave strong evidence regarding the quality of the Defendant’s system of inspection and repair. The witness statements were provided one month before trial. Upon reviewing the Defendant’s witness evidence Counsel for the Claimant indicated that he felt we would be unable to satisfy the Court that the Section 58 defence should fail and that the defendant had a safe and reliable system of inspection.
We contacted the Defendant’s solicitors and made a Part 36 offer to settle at £3500, to take into account the risks of litigation. The Defendant’s solicitors made a counter offer, to take into account the risks of losing at trial, in the sum of £2500 plus costs.
The Claimant was delighted with the settlement, in light of counsel’s advice that we would receive nothing should we run the matter to trial.