Dangerous manhole cover

Atkins v Ealing London Borough Council [2006] EWHC 2515 (QB)

Counsel: For the appellant: Steven Snowden For the respondent: Giles Mooney Solicitors: For the appellant: Barlow Lyde & Gilbert For the respondent: Hallam-Peel & Co

E appealed against a decision that they, as a highway authority were liable for the personal injuries that she had suffered. The appellant had been walking down a shopping street, and had injured her ankle when she had stepped onto a manhole cover which tilted, causing her foot to fall into the manhole. There was common ground that as there was a tendency for the manhole cover to tilt when it was stepped on, the highway was dangerous, and that E had failed to maintain it as required by the Highways Act 1980 s.41. However, E asserted that under s.58 of the Act, they had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably necessary to ensure that the manhole cover was not a danger to pedestrians. The judge had rejected E’s defence under s.58, and had held that a reasonable system of inspection required E to inspect manhole covers closely, to check that they were secure, but that E’s system of purely visual inspection, which was carried out monthly, was not a reasonable system. On appeal, E contended that the trial judge had placed too high a standard of care upon it, and had failed to strike the correct balance between public and private interests which the courts had indicated was necessary in this field.