I was therefore interested to read of the recent Court of Appeal decision that found a local council responsible for a hole in a grass verge despite a lack of photographs or measurements. In this case the Claimant walked across the grass verge, in front of her house, to get to her car when her foot went into a hole in the grass.The evidence about the existence and size of the hole was said to be less than satisfactory.  The Claimant had not photographed or measured the hole at the time of her accident or even soon after it.  In her evidence the Claimant estimated the depth of the hole to be around 4.5 inches.

In the first instance the case was heard in the County Court.  The Judge accepted the Claimant had stepped into the hole and held that the council had been in breach of its duty, although found the Claimant 50% contributory negligent.  The council appealed the decision criticising the lack of clear findings about the size, depth and characteristics of the hole.The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  They found that the true basis of the Judge's decision was found in the Claimant's evidence in that she stepped into the hole and her foot became stuck.


Despite this decision I still strongly recommend photographs and measurements are taken of a hole or any other defect.  Nothing can refute such clear evidence and probably would have prevented this claim from proceeding to Trial at all, let alone the Court of Appeal. 



Karen Thompson

Legal Executive - Personal Injury team