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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal