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!
Tram Crash Compensation Claim
Car Crash Injury
William Roe V (1) Sheffield City Council (2) South Yorkshire Light Rail Ltd (3) South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd (4) Balfour Beatty Power Construction (2004)
Lost Control Of Car
The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's decisions to strike out the claimant's case against the first defendant local authority, except in its capacity as highway authority, and to strike out the claim against the fourth defendant contractor.
The claimant (R) appealed against two decisions restricting the way he was able to present his claim for damages for serious personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
The claimant (R) appealed against two decisions restricting the way he was able to present his claim for damages for serious personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
In 1995 R lost control of his car while driving on a dual carriageway road in Sheffield which was also used by trams. It was wet and the tyres of R's car got onto the tram rails, which stood a little proud of the bedding material and concrete on either side and were almost exactly the same distance apart as the wheels of R's car. The car tyres slid along the rails and then off onto the adjacent concrete causing the front of the car to "snatch". The car collided with a cable support pole in the central reservation and R was seriously injured.
Railway Negligence
R issued proceedings against the defendants on the basis that they should have known that the protruding rails were dangerous particularly in the wet. In addition to allegations of negligence, R alleged that the first defendant local authority was in breach of statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980 s.41 and that the second and third defendant companies which operated the trams were in breach of the enabling legislation which required the rails to be laid level with the road surface.
Similar allegations were made against the fourth defendant contractor (D4) which was employed to design and build the tram system. The judge decided as preliminary issues that the state of the highway materially contributed to the accident and that R's driving did not.
Obligation To Maintain Roads
He further concluded that the obligation to maintain the highway had been transferred from the first defendant local authority to the second defendant (D2) under the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1988 which incorporated part of the Tramways Act 1870. The Court of Appeal held that both the tram operator and the highway authority could be liable concurrently under the statutory provisions where the tram rails caused an accident (Roe v Sheffield City Council (2003) 2 WLR 848).The case was remitted to the judge who dismissed R's claim against the local authority at common law and struck out the claims against the other defendants simply by reference to the pleadings. R appealed against the striking out of the claim against D4 and against the judgment in favour of the local authority, arguing that the local authority owed a duty of care in addition to its statutory obligations as highway authority.
Call FREE now on our 24 hour helpline
UK Tram Accident
HELD: (1) The case that R wished to present against the local authority at common law was not confined to highway maintenance obligations or obligations that arose alongside the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.39 as amended. It arose out of the local authority's part in the design and implementation of the tram project and was a case which ought to be heard and decided. The reality was that, although R had a strong case against D2, he was not certain to succeed.
(2) The strength of R's case against D2, or against the local authority and D2, was not such that it was unnecessary for him to pursue his case against D4, whose liability was not necessarily co-extensive with that of the other defendants. If it could be shown that D4 undertook to design a safe system and then obtained information which pointed to both dangers and to a solution, it must then have been the duty of D4 either to implement the solution or advise the relevant parties of the dangers and of the solution.
D2 contended that D4 failed to take either course and, if that could be shown, it would amount to negligence which could be causative and for which neither the local authority nor D2 would have responsibility. In its defence D2 made allegations against the local authority and D4, and it would be contrary to the overriding objective if D2 were to succeed on the basis that the blame lay with D4 from whom R was unable to recover.
Appeal allowed.
Personal Injury - Highways
William Roe V (1) Sheffield City Council (2) South Yorkshire Light Rail Ltd (3) South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd (4) Balfour
Beatty Power Construction (2004)
LTL 23/3/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)
LTL 23/3/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: AC0108063
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.
