Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 2 May 2002

The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority’s negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A ‘Slow’ sign had become faded and had not been maintained.
Held: The judge had failed to apply the Lavis case, which had held that such omissions were not a duty imposed on the authority under the 1980 Act, and accordingly they were not negligent for having failed to do so. There were not such exceptional circumstances as would be needed to find such a duty. The sign would have been ‘no more than a warning of the need to do that which should have been obvious to her in any event as she drove up from the dip.’
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice May and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Times 16-May-2002, Gazette 30-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] RTR 446
Highways Act 1980 41, Road Traffic Act 1988 39
England and Wales
AppliedLavis v Kent County Council QBD 18-Feb-1992
The plaintiff had received serious injuries whilst riding his motor cycle at a road junction for which the defendants were responsible. He alleged that they were liable to him for failing to ensure that proper warning signs were placed at the . .
CitedLarner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council CA 20-Dec-2000
The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromGorringe 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.171183