The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority denied that any claim for damages might arise under it.
Held: The sections from which section 130 were derived had not been intended to give rise to an actionable duty, and nor did section 130. Nor could the rule in Sedleigh-Denfield be applied. The appeal was dismissed.
Longmore, Wilson, Toulson LLJ
 EWCA Civ 1282,  1 WLR 161,  3 All ER 348,  RTR 20,  NPC 113,  PTSR 1534,  PIQR P6
Highways Act 1980 130
England and Wales
Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Bagshaw v Buxton Local Board of Health CA 1875
House owners requested an injunction to stop the surveyors of highways removing a low wall and railing enclosing a piece of ground in front of it. The surveyors alleged that the ground was part of a highway and that the wall and railing were an . .
Cited – Harris v Northamptonshire County Council 1897
At common law a highway authority is under a duty to remove obstructions from a highway. . .
Cited – Cowley v Newmarket Local Board HL 1892
No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants.
Lord Halsbury said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for . .
Cited – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.426026