Can I claim against Highways Agency?
Discussion
We were travelling home on the M25 the other night, when we came across something in the road across lanes 1 & 2 which we couldn't avoid. Had to drive over it which busted a tyre, and I have now found out has damaged all 4 wheels. Highways turned up quite quickly as they had been dispatched to remove huge wooden post, which is what I drove over. Anyway, once the debris had been cleared up, they took all my details, gave me a ref number and informed me that I need to give details to my insurance company and I can claim for the damage to my car. They also said that two other people have got puntchures as a result of the debris, but they can't claim as by then they had put a warning sign up on the overhead gantry. When I drove over it there was no warning sign - yet Highways knew about the post as they had dispatched people to remove it.
Now that I am dealing with my insurance company, they have been told by Highways that I was given wrong info by their own employees, and I can't claim off them (I could if it was an problem with the road that damaged my car). They said I need to know which lorry dropped the wood, and claim off their insurance, or claim off mine as accidental damage. So I have asked that they look at their camera footage to see if they can see the lorry that dropped the post.
Has anyone here ever had to try claiming off Highways for something like this? Or does anyone know where I stand to pursue it?
Cheers!
Now that I am dealing with my insurance company, they have been told by Highways that I was given wrong info by their own employees, and I can't claim off them (I could if it was an problem with the road that damaged my car). They said I need to know which lorry dropped the wood, and claim off their insurance, or claim off mine as accidental damage. So I have asked that they look at their camera footage to see if they can see the lorry that dropped the post.
Has anyone here ever had to try claiming off Highways for something like this? Or does anyone know where I stand to pursue it?
Cheers!
groomi said:
Don't know about the specific details, but it would sound reasonable that your scenario is accidental damage and not the Highways Agencies liabilty. A lorry shedding it's load is beyond their control/responsibility.
Unfortunate, but that's life.
That is internally logical, but if the HA had in fact been aware of the debris, then why would they not have had a duty of care to flash warnings? (Am assuming that the referenced "wrong information" was not that the HA had been aware already.)Unfortunate, but that's life.
For goodness' sake, they're quick enough to drop the limit to 40 just because the traffic density has built up a bit. In this case - it seems - they were aware of the possibility of a serious hazard lying in the carriageway. It was important enough to send out a crew to remove it; why wasn't it important enough to warn motorists asap?
Of course the HA cannot be expected to be aware immediately of everything that fouls the carriageway. But once they are aware of it, surely they should be expected to take all reasonable action to make the area safe.
What if the OP or someone else had been killed?
groomi said:
It could simply be timing of the first actions of response - 1) send a team out, 2) activate a sign as opposed to 1) activate a sign and 2) send out a team..?
However, I've no idea about the specifics so could be barking up the wrong tree completely.
That could be, although I would think that it should not take more than, say, a minute to send out a matrix or other signal.However, I've no idea about the specifics so could be barking up the wrong tree completely.
Regardless of the time required for the operation, it would seem to me as a layman that it would be far more effective first to warn all approaching motorists of an imminent hazard, in order to prepare and equip them to cope with it, and only after that to dispatch the clean-up crew.
What if, What if...
With regard to the OP's question, no, you can't claim against the Highways Agency. They didn't drop the wood, they had a procedure in place to clear the wood. In the mean time, you were one of the unfortunate ones. It's a claim againt the Op's insurer on this one, or nothing, I'm afraid to say...
With regard to the OP's question, no, you can't claim against the Highways Agency. They didn't drop the wood, they had a procedure in place to clear the wood. In the mean time, you were one of the unfortunate ones. It's a claim againt the Op's insurer on this one, or nothing, I'm afraid to say...
I had a similar thing happen to me last year, in fact just over a year ago. It was a really wet Saturday morning and to cut a long story short I ran over a wheel, complete with alloy, that was in the middle of my lane. Now, in a lowered MX5, that doesn't give me much ground clearance. It busted the power-steering (thankfully the return pipe which could be repaired relatively cheaply) and I had to get a new subframe and wishbone. The bumper was also cracked, but beared up remarkably well. Had to get the wheels re-aligned, which, ironically, is where I was going on the morning in question...
Whilst I was on the hard-shoulder jacking up the car to remove the wheel, which had got lodged underneath, I looked up and on the gantry in the distance there was the message "Caution, obstruction in road". "Yeah, thanks, I think I've just found it". It's a shame the message wasn't on the gantry before the obstruction.
No-one came to my rescue but the Highways Agency obviously knew about the incident. I was going to make a complaint to them but in the end I didn't get round to it and thought it would be more hassle than it was worth.
Whilst I was on the hard-shoulder jacking up the car to remove the wheel, which had got lodged underneath, I looked up and on the gantry in the distance there was the message "Caution, obstruction in road". "Yeah, thanks, I think I've just found it". It's a shame the message wasn't on the gantry before the obstruction.
No-one came to my rescue but the Highways Agency obviously knew about the incident. I was going to make a complaint to them but in the end I didn't get round to it and thought it would be more hassle than it was worth.
Cheers all! From what I can recall, I think we had just gone under a sign which didn't have a warning on it. I know it takes seconds to put a warning up as I've been in a control centre where that has been done, so I am suprised they didn't do this immediately.
I need to ring my insurance company today to see if Highways will check out the cameras, if not I'll see if a friend who works in motorway control centre would be willing to look back to see if the lorry is visible.
I think what gets me the most on this, is that the guys who attended said I could claim, but now I'm being told that I can't.
I need to ring my insurance company today to see if Highways will check out the cameras, if not I'll see if a friend who works in motorway control centre would be willing to look back to see if the lorry is visible.
I think what gets me the most on this, is that the guys who attended said I could claim, but now I'm being told that I can't.
Funnily enough I know someone who was involved in a trial of a similar issue. IIRC, the point held was that if the hazard is such that HA/LA knew or ought reasonably to have known, then they need to take reasonable steps to warn or mend.
The law has to not have them liable for every time it rains for not drying the road, but also not to allow them to sit idly by.
I suspect the OP may have a claim as O/H warning signs are an easy way to warn so are certainly a reasonable step, and if HA knew then they should warn.
There's a separate claim against the person who created the danger which the HA could take up.
The law has to not have them liable for every time it rains for not drying the road, but also not to allow them to sit idly by.
I suspect the OP may have a claim as O/H warning signs are an easy way to warn so are certainly a reasonable step, and if HA knew then they should warn.
There's a separate claim against the person who created the danger which the HA could take up.
It would be a straight negligence action against the HA, did they have a duty of care? Yes presumably.
Did they breach that duty of care? that would be down to the OP to prove that the HA had not acted as a reasonable HA should act - personally I think that would be tough (and expensive) to prove. You would have to have access to the timings (which you could get through disclosure) and you'd have to establish that their delay in activating the signs caused you to hit the debris and that had they activated the signs you wouldn't have hit the debris AND that this delay was sufficient for them to breach their duty of care.
I imagine that it's a bit like the "Tesco" defence, the HA would show that they have a procedure for dealing with occurences like this and that on this occasion they followed their procedure and therefore didn't breach any duty of care.
As said, whoever dropped the debris is more likely to be negligent but I think you'd have to prove that they knew or should have known that they had dropped it?
Did they breach that duty of care? that would be down to the OP to prove that the HA had not acted as a reasonable HA should act - personally I think that would be tough (and expensive) to prove. You would have to have access to the timings (which you could get through disclosure) and you'd have to establish that their delay in activating the signs caused you to hit the debris and that had they activated the signs you wouldn't have hit the debris AND that this delay was sufficient for them to breach their duty of care.
I imagine that it's a bit like the "Tesco" defence, the HA would show that they have a procedure for dealing with occurences like this and that on this occasion they followed their procedure and therefore didn't breach any duty of care.
As said, whoever dropped the debris is more likely to be negligent but I think you'd have to prove that they knew or should have known that they had dropped it?
I think the issue here is what are the facts:_
What time did the object fall off the lorry?
What time where the HA notified it was there?
How long does it take to change the sign?
What time did they send out a crew to retrieve it?
What time did they change the matrix signs to warn of it?
What time did you hit it?
If the timelag between them being notified, and them putting warnings on the matrix signs was excessive then I think you have a case.
If on the other hand you ran it over before anyone had told them about it then you don't.
What time did the object fall off the lorry?
What time where the HA notified it was there?
How long does it take to change the sign?
What time did they send out a crew to retrieve it?
What time did they change the matrix signs to warn of it?
What time did you hit it?
If the timelag between them being notified, and them putting warnings on the matrix signs was excessive then I think you have a case.
If on the other hand you ran it over before anyone had told them about it then you don't.
Am I missing something here, or should the OP have been driving at a speed appropriate to the prevailing traccic conditions, ie be able to bring his vehicle to a standstill within his immediate line of sight & within the area of road illuminated by his headlights.
By virtue of the fact that he crashed into a stationary & inanimate object (& whilst I am loathe to use such a phrase) surely he was travelling too fast ?
By virtue of the fact that he crashed into a stationary & inanimate object (& whilst I am loathe to use such a phrase) surely he was travelling too fast ?
Mr Robbo said:
Am I missing something here, or should the OP have been driving at a speed appropriate to the prevailing traccic conditions, ie be able to bring his vehicle to a standstill within his immediate line of sight & within the area of road illuminated by his headlights.
By virtue of the fact that he crashed into a stationary & inanimate object (& whilst I am loathe to use such a phrase) surely he was travelling too fast ?
Not if the object is in effect camouflaged. By virtue of the fact that he crashed into a stationary & inanimate object (& whilst I am loathe to use such a phrase) surely he was travelling too fast ?
If it were the same colour as the roadway, you couldn't spot it at 10mph.
Mr Robbo said:
Flemke, OP referred to a "huge wooden post". Unless the Army has been in there & been a tad gungho with the camouflage paint, it looks like he should have seen it.
Have to disagree. IINM, creosote as used in treating wooden posts and the tar in tarmac are derived from the same source.
It's easy to imagine that a treated wooden post - especially one that sat lengthwise on the carriageway - would be nearly imperceptible at night.
Obviously if the post were painted reflective white, it would be different. We can't know just from the size of the post how noticeable it would have been.
Cheers.
Just to clarify re speeding and seeing the post... I wasn't speeding... cruise control was set at 70mph! It was 9:30pm at night, and wasn't directly under a light. We saw it as we came near to it, but as it was across 2 lanes, we couldn't do anything to avoid it! I ran straight up to the SOS box that wasn't far away, and Highways turned up while I was on the phone to the woman. The guys that turned up knew about the post as they had come out to get it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff