Skip to main content

Roads and Pavements: legal liability in case of negligence (P.75/2011) – comments.

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

ROADS AND PAVEMENTS: LEGAL LIABILITY IN CASE OF NEGLIGENCE (P.75/2011) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 4th July 2011

by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: A  P.75 Com.

COMMENTS

I  consider  the  proposition  to  be  laudable,  but  cannot  at  this  time  support  the proposition without ensuring that the full implications of the introduction of a new Law are fully explored from a judicial, financial and technical consideration.

Most Commonwealth countries have adopted a law change that provides a solution to the intent of the proposition by imposing a common-law duty of care to maintain the highway  as  an  absolute  obligation,  but  then  provides  for  a  statutory  defence.  In Guernsey they share the same legal situation as Jersey by not permitting claims for damages against the highway authority. Whereas the Isle of Man does accept claims, but they are low in number and they have not experienced a claims culture like the UK. It is reported that the Isle of Man legal licensing laws restrict the influx of no win no fee' solicitors.

This situation requires investigating by the Jersey Law Commission as recommended by the Royal Court judgement of the then Deputy Bailiff , M.C. St. John Birt, in 2003, as it may provide an answer to the concerns expressed below.

Financial and manpower implications

The   Deputy 's  claim  that  there  are  no  financial  or  manpower  implications  is  not correct,  and  evidence  gathered  to  date  demonstrates  that,  if  the  UK  model  were followed, substantial costs would be incurred assessing, managing and dealing with claims that would require the recruitment of additional staff. In addition, there is the risk that the introduction of such a Law could encourage the development of a local claims culture.

The true cost to TTS and the Parishes is unknown. The current non-feasence legal situation stops cases coming to the attention of the Authorities, thereby preventing an assessment of the quantum of claims from being estimated. However, what can be evidenced from the UK is that insurance premiums will inevitably rise to take account of the additional volume of claims that are likely to be received as a result of the proposition.

Law Officers have indicated that additional and significant legal representation would be required to assist Highway Authorities in defending claims.

One lesson that can be drawn from the UK experience is that, whilst additional costs are incurred in implementing systems to protect the Highway Authority from third party claims, this does not necessarily result in safer roads or better maintenance. The cost of claims and claims management comes from the highway maintenance budget, which, invariably results in less money available for repairs.

In summary, the financial and manpower implications could be significant for TTS and all the Parishes.

The true cost to TTS and the Parishes is unknown.

Page - 2

P.75/2011 Com.

TTS and the Parishes consider that the proposition will lead to a substantial increase in compensation claims, increase parish rates and increase insurance premiums. Additional staff and training will be required to handle claims and legal representation engaged to provide a robust defence.

I shall not be supporting this proposition. The Minister therefore recommends that the proposition is rejected.

Page - 3

P.75/2011 Com.