Floyd v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council: CA 5 Aug 2009

The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for personal injuries. He had tripped over an uneven pavement. The authority denied that the pavement was within its responsibility. The roadway had been constructed by a developer with an agreement for the authority to adopt it, but the authority said that it had not been a footpath and was therefore excluded at the time of the adoption of the carriageway.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Though there were discrepancies, the area had been within the area of land intended to be adopted, and ‘the relevant area of the quadrant serves and has, so far as I know, always served as a footway. It covers the area expressly demarcated on the section 38 agreement plan as a footway. We are told there was a provisional certificate. The Borough Engineer was clearly satisfied in 1984 that the footway should be adopted pursuant to the section 38 agreement.’
Laws LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1137
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 38(3) 41(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.377528