## Facts

- Mrs. Yetkin, the claimant, sustained injuries while crossing a road.
- Her view of oncoming traffic was obscured by a central reservation containing dense shrubs and vegetation.
- Mrs. Yetkin emerged from behind the reservation and was struck by a vehicle.
- The London Borough of Newham, as the defendant, was responsible for maintaining the highway, including the central reservation.

## Issues

1. Whether the highway authority owed a duty to address visibility hazards caused by vegetation on the highway.
2. Whether the vegetation on the central reservation constituted a reasonably foreseeable danger that contributed to Mrs. Yetkin’s accident.
3. Whether the authority had acted reasonably in maintaining the vegetation and preventing foreseeable risks.
4. Whether contributory negligence should be attributed to Mrs. Yetkin for failing to exercise adequate caution when crossing the road.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the highway authority could be liable for accidents caused by visibility hazards it created or failed to address.
- It was determined that the risk created by the vegetation was reasonably foreseeable, especially given the height and density of the shrubs and the road’s layout.
- The authority had not taken reasonable steps to maintain the vegetation at a safe height, thus failing in its statutory duty.
- A direct causal link was found between the obscured visibility and the incident leading to Mrs. Yetkin’s injuries.
- The Court also found Mrs. Yetkin contributorily negligent, reducing her damages to reflect her responsibility in failing to exercise sufficient caution.

## Legal Principles

- Highway authorities owe a duty of care under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain highways at a safe standard for users.
- Reasonable foreseeability plays a central role in establishing liability for hazards such as visibility obstructions.
- The standard imposed on authorities is one of reasonableness, not an absolute guarantee of safety.
- Liability arises when there is a foreseeable hazard, a failure to take reasonable preventive or corrective steps, and a causal link to the consequent harm.
- Contributory negligence applies where a claimant fails to exercise due care for their own safety, reducing the damages recoverable.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that highway authorities may be liable for visibility hazards on the highway where such risks are reasonably foreseeable and the authority fails to act reasonably to remedy them. However, liability can be apportioned if the claimant shares responsibility through contributory negligence.


Yetkin v London Borough of Newham [2010] EWCA Civ 776