Edge705
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Thornton Lancashire
Mention Section 58 ofthe Road Traffic Act you will find they will act quicker than just reporting the defect direct or online.
Basically Section 58 is a cop out for councils and the highways agency they will always in the first instance look at this because it covers them in two ways the first being due care is on the pedestrian/driver/cyclist to ensure they take reasonable care and secondly they cannot be held responsible for defects that develop after their yearly maintenance inspections. What’s more they do not even have to prove maintenance was carried out they just need to keep a record. Can I ask how can a cyclist takes reasonable care when a pot hole is immersed in water surely it has to be seen to be avoided?
However where they cannot claim defence under section 58 is when the defect has been reported.Once they are notified about a defect then they only have a reasonable amountof time to fix the repair. If they take any longer than 28 days or 1 month theywould find it difficult to defend a liability claim under this act should someone have anaccident or vehicle become damaged? I have always found they act very quickly infact as soon as the next day in most cases.
Here is the full textif you can be bothered reading it
Section 58 - The Special Defence
(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
expected to use it
(b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that
character and used by such traffic;
18 © the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have
expected to find the highway:
(d) whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonable 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, that 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
Basically Section 58 is a cop out for councils and the highways agency they will always in the first instance look at this because it covers them in two ways the first being due care is on the pedestrian/driver/cyclist to ensure they take reasonable care and secondly they cannot be held responsible for defects that develop after their yearly maintenance inspections. What’s more they do not even have to prove maintenance was carried out they just need to keep a record. Can I ask how can a cyclist takes reasonable care when a pot hole is immersed in water surely it has to be seen to be avoided?
However where they cannot claim defence under section 58 is when the defect has been reported.Once they are notified about a defect then they only have a reasonable amountof time to fix the repair. If they take any longer than 28 days or 1 month theywould find it difficult to defend a liability claim under this act should someone have anaccident or vehicle become damaged? I have always found they act very quickly infact as soon as the next day in most cases.
Here is the full textif you can be bothered reading it
Section 58 - The Special Defence
(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
expected to use it
(b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that
character and used by such traffic;
18 © the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have
expected to find the highway:
(d) whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonable 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, that 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
- Thanks for that!
