Owen v City of Westminster

A highway authority’s liability for an uneven pavement requires proof that the highway was dangerous to traffic, that the dangerous condition resulted from a failure to maintain, and that the injury resulted from that failure. Dangerousness is assessed by reasonable foresight of harm in the circumstances, without applying rigid measurements mechanically. Even where primary liability is established, the authority may rely on section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 by proving that it took such care as was reasonably required. The assessment includes the character and use of the highway, the appropriate maintenance standard, inspection arrangements, and responsive repairs. A reasonable inspection system and absence of actual knowledge may establish the statutory defence, although an accident and a dangerous defect are not themselves proof of inadequate maintenance.

The claimant, an elderly visitor to London, tripped on uneven paving stones on the north pavement of Oxford Street and suffered significant injuries. She brought a claim in negligence and breach of the statutory duty imposed by section 1 of the Highways Act 1980. The court found that her foot became caught in a gap between paving stones and that movement in an adjacent stone probably increased the trip. The central issues were whether the pavement was dangerous, whether the condition resulted from inadequate maintenance, and whether the defendant local authority had established the statutory defence under section 58.

1. The claimant proved that the paving defect constituted a dangerous trap. The missing pointing, the gap between the stones, and the capacity of the accident stone to depress by at least 15 mm, with possible enlargement of the trip by the adjacent rocking stone, made harm reasonably foreseeable. Primary liability was therefore established under the principles stated in Meggs v Liverpool Corporation [1968] 1 All ER 1138 and Mills v Barnsley Corporation 1 PIQR 291.
2. The court rejected a mechanically measured approach. Numerical thresholds may assist highway inspections, but the court must assess the actual place and circumstances of the accident and the reasonable foreseeability of harm.
3. The defendant established the section 58 defence. The relevant considerations included the pavement’s character, the exceptionally heavy pedestrian traffic, the maintenance standard reasonably appropriate for that highway, the monthly routine inspections, the method used to identify rocking stones and adjacent lips, and the system of reactive inspections and repairs.
4. The 20 mm intervention level was an appropriate operational yardstick for inspection. Monthly inspection was reasonable for the relevant pavement, and the inspection method was capable of identifying both visible defects and the consequential risks created by rocking stones. The defendant had no specific knowledge of this defect and was entitled to rely on its inspection and maintenance system.
5. The claim failed. Although the pavement was dangerous in the relevant sense, the claimant did not prove inadequate maintenance, and the defendant proved the statutory defence under section 58. The defendant was not liable for the injuries.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.