Recent Legal Decisions Affecting Public Administration
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1934.tb02397.x |
| Date | 01 October 1934 |
| Published date | 01 October 1934 |
| Author | F. Enever |
Notes
RECENT
LEGAL
DECISIONS
AFFECTING
PU~LIC
ADMINISTRATION
By
F.
A.
ENEVER,
M..A.,
LL.D.
SYNOPSEj
Vehicular
Appmachea
over
Footpatha
;
Negligence
;
Entertainm
ents
;
Poor
law
Settlement;
SaperuanP.tioe
Scheme
;
Surcharge
Appeals
;
Merentid
Rents
;
Public
Aathonties
Protection
;
Alteration
of
Boandaries
of
Coanty
Districts
;
Guty
Valuations
;
Drainage
Rate;
Clearance
Order;
Road
charger
under
Privatestreet
Works
Act.
Vehirzlar
Approaches
over
Foot
aths
The case of Marshall (since
a
eceased) and another
v.
Blackpool
Corporation
has
now
come before the House
of
Lords
on
appeal and has resulted in
a
decision
in
favour of the
original plaintiffs. The decisions of the Divisional Court in favour of
tht.
plaintiffs and
of
the
Court
of
Appeal
in
favour of the defendant Corporation are reported in
XI
PUBLIC
ADKI>TSTRATIOX,
105,
405.
Lord Atkin,
in
giving judgment, referred
to
the desirability,
in
order to construe
s.
62
of the Blackpool Improvement Act,
1879.
of considering what the rights
of
the
appellants (the frontagers) would
be
if
no
such enactment were
in
existence. The owner
of
land adjoining
a
highway had, he said,
a
right
of
access to
the
highway from any
part of his premises. The rights of lhe public to pass along the highway were subject
to that right of access, just
as
the rights of access were subject to the rights of the
public, and must
be
exercised subject to the general obligations
as
to nuisance and thc
like imposed
on
a
person using the highway. Apart from any statutory provision. there
was
no
obligation
on an
adjoining owner to fence his property from the highway.
As
far
as
his Lordship could see,
s.
62
of the Act of
1879
did not even purport to
affect
the right of the adjoining owner
at
all.
It
was directed to works and to works only.
The place
of
the communication must be stated to enable the Corporation
to
judge
what
provision was made for kerbing and for a paved crossing
and
to consider the dimensions
and gradients
of
the
necessary works. The Corporation might consider the nature
of
the proposed user in order
to
judge
how
the way should be constructed,
both
as
tc,
surface and kerbing and in relation to the gradient.
If
the actual works, either by the
steepness of the gradient, or the depth of the side kerbing, would be likely to
affect
the
safety of pedestrians
on
the footway or of vehicles
on
the roadway, there seemed to him
no
reason why they should not take those-factors into account.
But
they were not
entitled
to
take into account
questions
of
safety
and convenience of the public except
in
so
far
as
aiTected by the nature of the works. They might not, therefore, take into
account the
nature
and extent of the proposed user of a communication in itself safe
and sufficient for that user.
(The
Times,
26th June,
1934
;
177
Law
Times.
453
;
gS
Justice
of
the Peace.
445.)
Negligence
In Liddle
v.
North Riding of Yorkshire County Council the Court of Appeal allowed
the defendant Council’s appeal against an award
of
A1462
damages in respect of injuries
sustained to the
plaintiff,
a
boy aged
six
years,
in
falling
off
a
4
ft.
6
in. wall
along
a
road
to
which the Council were making improvements. Against the
wall
was
a
heap
of
soil
by
means
of
which the infant plaintiff clambered up
and
sat
on
the wall.
On
the other
side of the wall
was
an
18
ft.
drop into
a
field. The plaintiff fell backwards over the
wall and sustained injuries.
On
his
behalf
it
was alleged that the place was dangerous,
that there
was
allurement and
a
trap, and that there wag negligence
in
having
a
heap
of
soil
against
the wall.
The Court of Appeal
(Scrutton,
Greer and Slesser
L.JJ.)
held that
no
facts were
proved which would give
a
cause of action against the defendants, and Lord
Justice
krutton.
in
the course
of
his judgment, stated that there was abundant evidence
that
392
To continue reading
Request your trial