{"id":12806,"date":"2013-06-05T12:03:14","date_gmt":"2013-06-05T11:03:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk\/injury-lawyers-blog\/?p=12806"},"modified":"2013-06-05T12:03:14","modified_gmt":"2013-06-05T11:03:14","slug":"tripped-over-a-large-pothole-injury-lawyers-advice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk\/injury-lawyers-blog\/2013\/06\/05\/tripped-over-a-large-pothole-injury-lawyers-advice\/","title":{"rendered":"Tripped Over a Large Pothole Injury Lawyers Advice"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"potholeWe have done a lot of articles on pothole claims over the years, and we have represented countless victims for claims against the council after tripping and falling due to potholes on the highway. These claims are inherently difficult to win. The reason for this is that those responsible for an area of land have a special defence under Section 58 of the Highways Act<\/a>, which is:<\/p>\n

\u00a0(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.<\/i>
\n<\/p>\n

(2)For the purposes of a defence under subsection (1) above, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters:\u2014<\/i><\/p>\n

(a)the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;<\/i><\/p>\n

(b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic;<\/i><\/p>\n

(c)the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway;<\/i><\/p>\n

(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;<\/i><\/p>\n

(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;<\/i><\/p>\n

To try and explain this in layman terms \u2013 the local authority can easily defend your claim if they can prove that:<\/p>\n