A highway authority’s duty of care to those using footpaths and highways extends to considering anti-slip measures on wooden boardwalks located in damp and shady places.
The High Court has considered this issue dismissing an appeal in Suffolk County Council v Lyall [2025] EWHC 1032 (KB).
Samantha Lyall was walking her dog through Binney Woods near Capel St Mary outside Ipswich. While the woods are private property, she was using a footpath which was a public right of way that the council as highway authority had a duty to maintain and repair.
The footpath was largely unmade-up but at certain points there were wooden bridges over ditches and lengths of wooden boardwalk over boggy stretches of the path. Lyall slipped on “slimy green mildew”, mud and damp fallen leaves on a boardwalk and broke her left ankle.
At first instance, Lyall’s claim under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 failed. There is no statutory duty to ensure that highways are clear of moss, algae, lichen or similar vegetation Rollinson v Dudley MBC [2015] EWHC 3330 (QB). Her claim in common law negligence was rejected on a failure to inspect but succeeded on the need to consider anti-slip measures.
The judge considered that more regular inspections of wooden boardwalks would be impracticable because in most cases they would be dotted in short strips along unmade-up paths. However, the council’s own specifications made it clear that it was advisable to have anti-slip strips on boardwalks located in damp and shady places such as Binney Woods. There was no evidence that the council had undertaken a risk-assessment. Anti-slip strips could be installed at relatively modest initial costs and did not require regular maintenance and inspection.
The council appealed contending that it owed no duty to take positive action to make the boardwalk safer and could not be liable for an omission. No duty arose in relation to the fabric of the highway of which the boardwalk was part, akin to tarmac or flagstones.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded Lyall slipped on a wooden boardwalk which the council had installed over an existing right of way which transmuted the case into one of commission. The foreseeable risk that arose was one the council had both created and foresaw.
The judge’s analysis of whether the council had discharged its duty of care was correct. The council should have considered the need to install anti-slip measures. Had the council demonstrated that it had addressed the risk factors and decided not to install anti-slip measures Lyall might have been in difficulty.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
