Free Claim Assessment.
Complete the short claim form to get a free claim assessment & expert advice with no obligations!
Complete the short claim form to get a free claim assessment & expert advice with no obligations!
Home > Local Government Claims
Pothole Injury Compensation Claim
Public Nuisance Claim
Collier V Peterborough City Council & Anr (2003)
On the evidence, the claimant had failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities, her injuries had been caused by falling in a pothole.
Highways - Negligence - Personal Injury - Nuisance - Evidence - Local Government
QBD (HH Judge Kirkam) 17/10/2003
LTL 17/10/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: AC9607014
Claim Against Local Goverment
On the evidence, the claimant had failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities, her injuries had been caused by falling in a pothole.
The claimant alleged that in early 2000 whilst walking with her son, she had sustained injury to her left ankle and leg by slipping on the deteriorated edge of a path that was maintained by the first defendant and which ran through a park owned by the second defendant. Immediately after her fall, she was attended to by a park ranger who took a record of how the accident had occurred. The claimant was taken to the local hospital which also made a record of how the accident had occurred.
Clear Recollection Of Accident
In a subsequent examination by a hospital consultant, the claimant asserted that she had slipped in a pothole containing water and that had caused her injury. In September 2003 she amended her claim to state that there was no water in the pothole. The claimant submitted that the first defendant was in breach of the duty of care that it owed her under the Highways Act 1980 and that the second defendant had through failing to maintain its property properly, caused a nuisance that lead to the formation of the pothole.
HELD : The evidence in the present case did not support the claimants assertion that she had fallen in a pothole. The burden of proof was on the claimant to prove her case. There was no mention in the records taken shortly after the accident that the accident had been occasioned by falling in a pothole. The claimant did not have a clear recollection of the accident therefore on the balance of probabilities the claimant had not proved that her injuries were caused by falling in a pothole.
Claim dismissed.
Jonathan Jones instructed by Shakespeare (Birmingham) for the claimant. Hugh Hamill instructed by Browne Jacobson
(Nottingham) for the first defendant. Jonathan Mitchell instructed by the DLA (Sheffield) for the second defendant.
(Nottingham) for the first defendant. Jonathan Mitchell instructed by the DLA (Sheffield) for the second defendant.
LTL 17/10/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Call FREE now on our 24 hour helpline
Pothole Injury Compensation Claim
Public Nuisance Claim
Collier V Peterborough City Council & Anr (2003)
On the evidence, the claimant had failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities, her injuries had been caused by falling in a pothole.
Highways - Negligence - Personal Injury - Nuisance - Evidence - Local Government
QBD (HH Judge Kirkam) 17/10/2003
LTL 17/10/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: AC9607014
Claim Against Local Goverment
On the evidence, the claimant had failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities, her injuries had been caused by falling in a pothole.
The claimant alleged that in early 2000 whilst walking with her son, she had sustained injury to her left ankle and leg by slipping on the deteriorated edge of a path that was maintained by the first defendant and which ran through a park owned by the second defendant. Immediately after her fall, she was attended to by a park ranger who took a record of how the accident had occurred. The claimant was taken to the local hospital which also made a record of how the accident had occurred.
Clear Recollection Of Accident
In a subsequent examination by a hospital consultant, the claimant asserted that she had slipped in a pothole containing water and that had caused her injury. In September 2003 she amended her claim to state that there was no water in the pothole. The claimant submitted that the first defendant was in breach of the duty of care that it owed her under the Highways Act 1980 and that the second defendant had through failing to maintain its property properly, caused a nuisance that lead to the formation of the pothole.
HELD : The evidence in the present case did not support the claimants assertion that she had fallen in a pothole. The burden of proof was on the claimant to prove her case. There was no mention in the records taken shortly after the accident that the accident had been occasioned by falling in a pothole. The claimant did not have a clear recollection of the accident therefore on the balance of probabilities the claimant had not proved that her injuries were caused by falling in a pothole.
Claim dismissed.
Jonathan Jones instructed by Shakespeare (Birmingham) for the claimant. Hugh Hamill instructed by Browne Jacobson
(Nottingham) for the first defendant. Jonathan Mitchell instructed by the DLA (Sheffield) for the second defendant.
(Nottingham) for the first defendant. Jonathan Mitchell instructed by the DLA (Sheffield) for the second defendant.
LTL 17/10/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
For free expert advice, with no obligation call FREE now
on our 24 hour helpline:
I tripped on an uneven pavement. I landed very awkwardly damaging both my right knee and ankle, needing surgery.
Susan Bailey
Susan Bailey
See the AAH tv ad starring Esther Rantzen!
That Means no risk, and no money needed to claim.
