Where a highway authority has admitted care, control and management of a footpath, and there is no identified alternative party with an obvious interest in performing the relevant work, the circumstantial evidence — including the location and nature of the work, the authority's general practice of performing such work, and its failure to call witnesses or produce records — may be sufficient to support an inference that the authority performed the work, thereby establishing misfeasance rather than mere nonfeasance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.