Gillian
(we have changed her name) on 19 November 2015 was walking along Tooley Street
next to London Bridge Station during the rush hour when she tripped over the
raised edge of a paving stone.
She
suffered a fractured right wrist and severe injuries to her face which left
permanent scarring.
Because
Tooley Street is part of the Red Route Network the responsible authority for
maintenance of the pavement was Transport for London. TfL denied liability. They argued that their maintenance records
showed that Tooley Street was subject to weekly inspections to identify any
defects on the pavement and that any such defects identified were repaired
promptly.
As
part of their defence, TfL disclosed before any proceedings were issued their
maintenance records. The records
demonstrated that the defective paving stone had been subject to repairs four
days before on 15 November 2015. The TfL
contractors responsible as part of their documentation had taken photographs of
the pavement which enabled the precise paving stone to be identified as the same
one responsible for our client's accident.
In
the face of the denial of liability, on behalf of our client we issued Court
proceedings in the County Court alleging that the paving stone had been
negligently repaired on 15 November 2015 and but for that the paving would not
have been standing proud presenting a danger to pedestrians when our client
tripped over its edge a few days later.
TfL submitted a defence speculating that the pavement may have been
subject to movement by heavy vehicles parking up on the pavement during
deliveries to local shops. This,
however, was improbable given that the pavement was near to a bus stop and on a
Red Route and without any obvious retail outlets nearby.
Practice
point:
Local authorities responsible for the maintenance of public pavements are
provided with a statutory defence under the Highways Act 1980 where they can
demonstrate that they have a reasonable system of maintenance and inspection in
place. Such a defence, however, will not
save them where there is evidence as in this case that the maintenance was
negligently performed. It was our
submission that on the balance of probabilities a Court would have found that a
paving stone should not have been rocking out of alignment within four days of
repairs whose purpose was to prevent such rocking and ensure that the pavement
was reasonably safe for pedestrians.