The replacement of defective decking planks on a timber bridge by a highway authority constitutes superficial repair to the road surface analogous to filling potholes, and does not amount to misfeasance even where the authority knew of deterioration in the structural girders. For misfeasance to be established, the evidence must show that the bridge had become impassable before the repairs and that the repairs threw open an unsafe road to traffic afresh. The mere fact that decking planks form part of the overall bridge structure does not convert their replacement into structural repair imposing an obligation to address underlying defects.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.