Why cant we sue the government about the state of the roads?

[mystery man 10]

This was a PFI project started in May 2009 (link).

 

Now which gormless one-eyed twit was in No. 10 at that time?

 

 

Once again Sheffield forum's finest display their amazing goldfish like memory of anything that occurred before the last election.

 

over 2 thou posts

 

you really DO need to get out more....

[dosxuk 10]

over 2 thou posts

 

you really DO need to get out more....

 

Vague_Boy has made almost 2,600 posts in 46 months, averaging 57 per month. You have made 133 posts in three months, averaging 44 per month. Not really that much difference is there?

 

Why cant we sue the goverment about the state of the road to make them repair them. if we all stuck together for a couple of weekends do you think something would be done?

 

And what would the point in that be? It would cost us money to defend the case, and then do the work if the Government is found to have acted illegally, which they almost certainly won't.

 

Seems like a gigantic waste of my taxes to me.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Why cant we sue the goverment about the state of the road to make them repair them...

 

You can't sue the government, but you can change it. Both the local and the national government are elected and you can always vote for somebody else.

 

If you could sue the government and if everybody did so and if everybody won, who would pay?

 

Q. Where does the government get its money from?

A. You, the taxpayer.

 

So you sue the government. The government loses. It has to pay you and it has to pay your legal costs.

 

You have to pay the government so it can pay you.

 

Who wins?

[anywebsite 10]

You can sue the government.

[anywebsite 10]

You can't sue the government, but you can change it. Both the local and the national government are elected and you can always vote for somebody else.

 

If you could sue the government and if everybody did so and if everybody won, who would pay?

 

Q. Where does the government get its money from?

A. You, the taxpayer.

 

So you sue the government. The government loses. It has to pay you and it has to pay your legal costs.

 

You have to pay the government so it can pay you.

 

Who wins?

 

The object would be to change the government's behaviour.

 

For example, if it cost the government more to keep paying out because of the poor state of the roads than it would cost to fix them, the roads would get fixed a lot faster in future.

 

BTW, local government (the council) are responsible for most roads, so you'd probably want to sue them.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

You can sue the government.

 

Indeed you can. But before you think about mass lawsuits, look at Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2, consider the attitude of the courts towards 'floodgates' and look at the subsequent limitations imposed by the courts.

 

One person (or even a lot of people) suing a council for damage caused by a hole in the road which the council was aware of and which the council had ignored might [probably would] stand a good chance of success.

 

Mass lawsuits against the government for damage caused to millions of vehicles because the general condition of the roads was poor wouldn't (IMO) stand a chance.

 

(NB: Hedley Byrne disclaimer: I am not offering you legal advice. You do what you like, but before you do so I suggest you obtain (paid) professional advice from an advisor .)

[anywebsite 10]

Winning is entirely different, but you can in theory sue the government.

 

It only costs £25 in the small claims court. I can see a few reports on the internet about people suing their council over pothole damage & injuries, but I'm not sure how many won.

[anywebsite 10]

This woman won £765 - http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/whereilive/southwest/kingston/4118097.Woman_wins_pothole_law_suit/

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The object would be to change the government's behaviour.

 

You can influence the government's behaviour by writing to your councillor/MP and telling him/her what you want him/her to do. if you can get a lot of people to do that (and petitions do work) you might get what you want. - Particlarly if you can convince enough of the elected officials that they will soon be looking for another job if they don't do what you want. For some reason, politicians develop acutely sensitive hearing when they think somebody is going to drag the trough away. That's the accepted way in English politics.

 

For example, if it cost the government more to keep paying out because of the poor state of the roads than it would cost to fix them, the roads would get fixed a lot faster in future.

 

It doesn't cost the government a penny. the government doesn't have any money. When it wants money, it borrows it (and makes you pay the interest) or it takes yours. The only money the government (or any politician) is really interested in is the money they get for being politicians.

 

BTW, local government (the council) are responsible for most roads, so you'd probably want to sue them.

 

Quite so, but there are a number of hurdles you have to leap to stand a chance of winning an action in Tort.

 

1. Duty of Care. OK, the council does have a duty of care to road users, but how far does that duty of care extend? Does it apply in the same manner to all road users at all times? - For instance, I've seen crash barriers in the UK which are made of wires. They'll stop a car, but they will kill a motorcyclist. Why are they not illegal?

 

2. Breach of that Duty. Did the behaviour of the council fall below the threshhold of 'a reasonable man'? If the council were aware that there was a dangerous pothole, if they had been aware of that pothole for sufficient time for them to have reasonably repaired it and if they chose to ignore it, you're in with a chance. I suggest you would have to prove the case for each pothole. - You wouldn't get far claiming for each and every pothole, nor would you stand much chance with a claim for damage for a pothole which they said they didn't know about, or for damage caused by a pothole which had only been reported to them half an hour ago.

 

There is (or was) an organisation which maintained lists of road hazards which had been reported to the council(s). If you could prove that the council knew about that pothole (by reference to the list) it would improve your chances. Remember, you are the one making the claim. It's up to to you to prove the council knew about the pothole and ignored it, the council is not obliged to prove it was unaware of the pothole.

 

Many of the roads in the UK are in a deplorable condition. We all know that, but the general condition of the roads is not (IMO) sufficient evidence to prove that a particular pothole caused particular damage. Your lawsuit must be specific.

 

Then, of course, there's the 'floodgates' argument. (See my previous post and read the Case Law.) The courts are very reluctant to award damaged in any action which might open the floodgates to a mass of claims.

 

It's not fair. It's the law. The law does not have to be fair.

 

If you personally have had a loss caused by a pothole, then I suggest you try to find out (from the organisation which records potholes?) whether the council were aware of the pothole. if you can prove that they were and they ignored it, then you're in with a chance.

 

You then have to prove that that particular pothole was the one which caused the damage and you will also have to prove that you were unaware of the existence of the pothole before you encountered it. After all, if you knew it was there, why didn't you avoid it or slow down to such a speed as would cause no damage? 'I forgot about it' admits you were negligent. If the pothole is on a route which you travel often and if it's been there for some time, I wouldn't give much for your chances.

 

People have won. Many people have won. But if there was a mass claim (as was suggested in an earlier post) that might all change.

 

You can start with the small claims court, but don't be too surprised if the council appeal the ruling of that court and it gets pushed 'up the hill' to a superior court. The council might not bother for a £500 claim (not worth the hassle), but (IMO) if they start getting hit with large numbers of big claims, you can expect them to appeal.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Rupert_Baehr

[Mecky 10]

If we did we would still have to pay because the government would just increase taxes to pay for being sued.