Meggs v Liverpool Corporation

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON,LORD JUSTICE WINN
Judgment Date27 June 1967
Judgment citation (vLex)[1967] EWCA Civ J0627-1
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date27 June 1967

[1967] EWCA Civ J0627-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

The Court of Appeal

Civil Division.

From the Presiding Judge, Liverpool Court of Passage

Before:

The Master of The Rolls

(Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Salmon and

Lord Justice Winn

Meggs
Plaintiff
Appellant
and
The Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of The City of Liverpool
Defendants
Respondents

MR J. EDWARD JONES (instructed by Messrs Bower, Cotton & Bower, Agents for Mr S. B. Levin) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR MORRIS JONES (instructed by Mr T. Alker, Town Clerk, Liverpool) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
1

We need not trouoie you, Mr Morris Jones.

2

In this case Mrs Meggs, a widow of 74 years of age, who lives in Mill Lane, Liverpool, at 10 o'clock at night went to get some lemonade for her daughter. She walked along the High Street which is a busy road. There was a pavement 16 to 22 ft. wide. As she went along she tripped. She tripped because the flagstones were uneven. They had sunk in different places: so much so that one of them had sunk about three-quarters of an inch. She tripped and fell and hurt herself. She had some cuts and was shaken up. She went to the doctor that very evening. She reported it to the police. The police reported it to the Highway authority, the Corporation. A few days later the Corporation came and levelled the flagstones and thenceforward the pavement was reasonably level. She brought this action for damages against the Corporation complaining of the condition of the pavement.

3

In the old days there would have been a simple answer to this claim. A Highway Authority was not liable for the bad state of a highway if it was due to neafeasance, that is, not doing any repairs. A Highway Authority was only liable for misfeasance, that is, doing things badly. That distinction was criticised for years: and in 1961 it was abolished by Section 1 of the Highways Act 1961.

4

What is the effect of the abolition? It means that the Highway Authority are under a duty to maintain the highway and keep it in repair. If it is in a dangerous condition so that it is not reasonably safe for people going along it, then prima facie there is a breach of the obligation to maintain and keep it in repair: and any person who suffers particular damage on account of it can bring an action against the Highway Authority. But the Highway Authority can escape liability if they prove that they took all reasonable care to see that it was safe, having regard to the various matters set out in the statute, see Sections 1(2) and 1(3) of the Highways Act 1961. Atthe outset, however, in order to make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that the highway was not reasonably safe, i.e. that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Pitman v Southern Electricity Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Roe v Sheffield City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 Enero 2003
    ...... ER 97 ,C A Heil v Rankin [ 2001 ]Q B 272 ;[ 2000 ] 2 WLR 1173 ;[ 2000 ] 3 All ER 138 ,C A Meggs v Liverpool Corpn [ 1968 ] 1 WLR 689 ;[ 1968 ] 1 All ER 1137 ,C A Metropolitan Asylum District v ......
  • Wentworth v Wiltshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Mayo 1992
    ...to establishthat the relevant part of the highway was dangerous to traffic. This is, indeed, well settled by authority, see Meggs v. Liverpool Corporation [1968] 1 WLR 689, Burnside v. Emerson [1968] 1 WLR 1490, and Lawman v. London Borough of Waltham Forest C.A. ( unreported C.A. transcrip......
  • Langley v North West Water Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 Marzo 1991
    ...... COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAMILTON) Royal Courts of Justice (Transcript ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ILO Standards and the Nigerian Law of Unfair Dismissal
    • United Kingdom
    • African Journal of International and Comparative Law No. , September 2009
    • 1 Septiembre 2009
    ...whereby an employer becomes the accuser, judge and executioner. The effort of Eso J.S.C. in Federal Civil Service Commission v Laoye8989[1968] 1 W.L.R 689. has not been built upon over the years. In that case, the Ministry of External Affairs was both the accuser and judge. It is on the Min......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT