George Morriss v London Borough of Hillingdon

Liability under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 requires proof that the highway was dangerous, that the danger resulted from failure to maintain or repair it, and that the injury resulted from that failure. A highway is not dangerous merely because a minor defect presents some foreseeable risk. The risk must be a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as requiring remedial action. The statutory defence in section 58 may be established by a reasonable inspection and maintenance system. Perfection, a bespoke risk assessment for every manhole cover, or the absence of a dedicated skid-resistance policy is not required where the system is reasonably designed and applied.

The claimant sought damages from the defendant highway authority for severe injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident on Falling Lane on 10 September 2019. He alleged that his motorcycle lost traction on a worn and polished manhole cover positioned on a bend in the carriageway, and that the adjacent fence aggravated his injuries.

The trial was split, and the Deputy High Court Judge determined preliminary liability issues. The central questions were whether the manhole cover constituted a dangerous condition for the purposes of section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, whether it caused the accident, and whether the defendant could establish the statutory defence under section 58.

1. Dangerous condition. The claimant had to establish the three elements identified in Mills v Barnsley MBC: a dangerous highway condition, creation of that condition by failure to maintain or repair, and injury resulting from that failure. Applying the approach in Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell, the relevant risk had to be a real source of danger, not merely a foreseeable risk arising from an ordinary minor defect.
2. The manhole cover was worn and polished to some extent, but its raised pattern remained materially higher than its principal surface. Repeated inspections found it non-defective, level, and possessed of substantial grip. The evidence, including the absence of previous similar accidents in high traffic volumes, did not establish an actionable danger. The claimant therefore failed to prove breach of section 41.
3. Causation. The claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the front wheel lost traction on the manhole cover. The evidence was affected by the claimant’s lack of contemporaneous recollection, the error in the letter of claim identifying the rear wheel, and the brothers’ later reconstruction of events. The more probable explanation was momentary rider error unrelated to the manhole cover.
4. Statutory defence. Even if the highway had been dangerous and the other elements of liability had been established, the defendant would have succeeded under section 58. Its monthly inspections were compliant with relevant guidance and were conducted by trained and experienced inspectors using a systematic method designed to identify hazards, including worn or polished manhole covers.
5. Section 58 did not require a bespoke staged risk assessment for every manhole cover, a specific skid-resistance policy, or a standard of perfection. The existing inspection and maintenance system constituted such care as was reasonably required. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment was a first-instance determination of preliminary liability issues following a split-trial order made by Master Yoxall on 20 March 2024. No appellate decision is stated.