Posted By Stuart Nagle
In view of the previous discussion on the bus, I comment no further. Without knowing who was responsible (the bus driver or AN Other) the question is acedemic.
On the question of the trip over the paving slab however, there is need to clarify the issue in respect of highways law.
Firstly, there are specific standards for maintenance of public highways in respect of the classification of highway type. For example the standard of maintenance to be expected on a footway in a town centre would be higher than say a footway on a rural road, and case law has determined what is acceptable and what is not. The rights afforded a person on the public highway are enshrined in law, being that every person has a right to pass and re-pass along a public highway and may be hindered only by obstructions that are either natural or legal.
In respect of the trip there are a number of reasons why the footway may have been in a condition that resulted in a defect causing the trip, the common ones are;
Tree roots, utility openings, poor reinstatement of openings/subsidence, vehicles parking on the footway, lack of maintenance by the highway authority. all or any of which could have been responsible.
The highway authority have defences at law in respect of such incidents, and these include both the nature of the highway and the maintenance standards/obligations afforded to the highway type, and/or that the defect was as a result of the actions of another party and that the highway authority could not reasonably have known of the defect.
The frequency that highways are inspected is governed by their classification, as referred to above, and in the case of your average estate and 'local distributor' routes, inspections are normally carried out at three monthly intervals. Only if the highway had been marked for repair by the highway authority, (determined by the cour of the marking paint) and the repair had not been carried out within a reasonable timscale (for the road classification) could the highway authority be found to be at fault to any extent. Obviously if the defect was dangerous they would/should sign and guard the defect (and also perhaps arrange for routine inspections of the signing and guarding - including out of hours inspections - until the repair was instigated).
Not all footways are part of the public highway, many are private (particularly in towns and shopping centres etc) and are not maintained at public expense, therefore trying to prosecute the highway authority will be fruitless. In any such case reference should made to the highway authority's 'definitive plan' to see if the footway in question is public or private. Even if the footway is on a main thoroughfare, if it is private the highway authority have no duty at law to maintain it, but can enter and repair and re-charge the owners the expense through a legal action, or sign and guard the defect and re-coup the costs in a similar way, however this does not tend to happen in reality.
Added to this of course would be the contributory negligence of a person if they, for example fell over a well signed, guarded and lit obstruction (unless, for example, they were blind and the barriers were not to the correct standard - with tapping rail etc). or an obvious defect in plain sight perhaps, obviously running at break-neck speed could be deemed as contributing to a fall.
So, from the little bit of information here, you can see that all is not quite as clear as one may think, exemplified by the trainee legal exec above, and that there are many areas that need to be considered in all their glory....
Regards...
Stuart