Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057

Facts

• Mrs. Gorringe, while driving uphill on a road maintained by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, collided with a slow-moving tractor obscured by a bus near a blind summit.
• She suffered severe injuries in the accident.
• The road previously bore "SLOW" markings, which had worn away and were not repainted by the Council.
• Mrs. Gorringe claimed the Council owed her a duty of care to maintain the road safely, including providing adequate warnings or signage about the hazard.
• She argued that the Council's failure to restore the markings or provide warnings contributed to the collision.

Issues

1. Whether Calderdale MBC owed a common law duty of care to Mrs. Gorringe to provide warnings or maintain signage to prevent harm.
2. Whether the statutory powers granted by the Highways Act 1980 imposed or gave rise to a private law duty actionable in negligence.
3. Whether an omission by a public authority in the exercise of discretionary statutory powers can ground liability under negligence law.
4. Whether the facts of the case fell within any established exception—such as the "highway rule"—imposing a duty of care.

Decision

• The House of Lords unanimously dismissed Mrs. Gorringe’s appeal.
• It held that Calderdale MBC owed her no duty of care regarding failure to provide warnings or reinstate road markings.
• The Court found that the Council's actions constituted nonfeasance (omission), not misfeasance (positive wrongful act).
• The mere existence of statutory powers to improve road safety did not create a common law duty to act in a particular manner.
• The "highway rule" did not apply, as it relates only to the road's physical condition, not the provision of warnings.

Legal Principles

• Public authorities generally owe no common law duty of care for omissions unless specifically imposed by statute or by an existing private law duty.
• The exercise of statutory powers alone does not generate a private law duty unless a statute expressly provides for it.
• There is a key legal distinction between nonfeasance (failure to act) and misfeasance (positive wrongful acts) for determining negligence liability.
• The "highway rule" exception imposes liability only for defects in the physical state of highways, not for failure to give warnings or information.
• Courts must avoid extending common law duties so as not to intrude on discretionary policy decisions reserved for public authorities and the legislature.
• The decision reaffirms the approach in Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, limiting public authority liability for omissions to clearly defined situations.

Conclusion

Gorringe v Calderdale MBC confirms that public authorities are generally not liable for omissions in negligence absent a specific statutory or private law duty, reinforcing the limited circumstances in which liability arises for failures to act and preserving the distinction between acts and omissions in public law negligence claims.