Obvious and typical imperfections in footpaths — including cracks, holes up to 15 mm deep, and uneven surfaces — do not give rise to a duty of care on the part of a council where the imperfections are visible in broad daylight and are of a kind commonly encountered by pedestrians. Expert evidence about pedestrian behaviour in radically different environments (such as underground railway concourses) does not support a finding that a footpath is 'unsafe'. Even if a duty existed, a plaintiff must establish why the council's repair budget allocation was inadequate, and the burden of proving breach lies on the plaintiff.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 42 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 42 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.