| Date | Event | By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 Jun 2008 - 23:56 | Added | Reporter | |
| 30 Jun 2008 - 11:25 | Reported | CTC | |
| 30 Jun 2008 - 16:47 | Reference added | Highway authority | Highway Authority reference updated. |
| 30 Jun 2008 - 16:49 | Reference added | Highway authority | Highway Authority reference updated. |
| 5 Aug 2008 - 17:26 | Comment | Reporter | The Local Authority has done nothing to remedy this fault apart from spraying red paint around the perimeter of the inspection cover. This means they are aware of the fault but this will not exempt them any liability resulting from a claim made against them. As: They cannot rely on Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 as a defence if they are sued for damage to the person,bicycle or car as a result of the fault. [quote] 58. Special defence in action against a highway authority for damages for non-repair of highway. (1) In an action against a highway authority in respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain a highway maintainable at the public expense it is a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic. (2) For the purposes of a defence under subsection (1) above, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters:” (a) the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it; (b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway; (d) whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; (e) where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed; but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions. (3) This section binds the Crown. [unquote] |
| 21 Sep 2008 - 10:26 | Fixed | Reporter | This fault has been remedied in the last 6 days. |
CTC – The UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation
Since 1878 CTC has been protecting and promoting the rights of cyclists. We are a not-for-profit organisation that is funded through memberships and donations. We focus on the social side of cycling as well as being a powerful and independent voice on behalf of ALL cyclists. We offer a range of benefits for every type of cyclist. By joining us YOU are supporting UK cycling and giving us a louder voice on issues that are important to you.
Join & support us – 0844 736 8451