Claimant Awarded £12,000.00 Damages After Tripping Over A Pothole Adjoining A Chemist Shop

In August 2016 Mr T was asked by his wife to go to the local chemist to buy some tissues.

He parked his car in the usual spot and was walking down a passageway to the chemist’s shop when he tripped and fell.

He felt a sharp pain in his right ankle and noticed that the tarmac had a defect by way of a small pothole.

He contacted our lawyers to establish whether or not he had a claim.

The first task that we had was to establish who owned the land in question.

After various enquiries at the Land Registry, we obtained the name of the company that appeared to own the land and sent them a Letter of Claim inviting them to pass that letter to their insurers.

After a couple of reminders we got a letter from the insurers indicating that they were not sure that their client owned the land in question.

We provided them with copies of the Land Registry entries and eventually they accepted ownership.

After investigating further, they denied liability on the grounds that the law states that where a person is using a piece of land as a right of way there is no obligation on the owner of that land to keep the area in good repair.

They quoted a couple of cases in the Court of Appeal which supported their contention.

Having reviewed the law, we discovered that whilst what they stated was correct if, however, the owner of the land had carried out any repair, then if that repair was not done properly and as a result a person sustained an injury, then they became liable.

In other words, if an owner of a piece of land on which people walk or cycle, using it as a right of way to get from place to another, they should either do nothing to keep it in good repair or, alternatively, ensure that any work that is carried out is done properly.

Having put the insurance company right as to the legal position, they eventually accepted responsibility.

A medical report was submitted together with details of Mr T’s financial losses and the insurance company offered £7,000.00 in compensation.

After further negotiation that figure was increased to £12,000.00 along with payment of Mr T’s legal costs.