1069 - 1551

Winter Maintenance - Scope of duty and onus of proof

Kelly Morton v West Lothian Council - Court of Session 3rd November 2005

Ms Morton lost control of her vehicle when she encountered a patch of black ice on the road that caused her to cross the carriageway and collide with an oncoming car. Her passenger died, and she sustained life-threatening injuries resulting in ongoing disability.

She raised an action against the Council on the basis that they had a duty, in accordance with their own policy, to grit the accident locus. Had they done so black ice would not have formed. The claim was split into two parts. Firstly, she claimed that the Council had failed to grit the small section of road at the accident locus due to the gritter drivers deviating from the prescribed gritting route. She further claimed that if that was not proved the very fact that ice had formed inferred that the Council had not complied with their duties. Given that breach in duty could only be within the knowledge of the Council, she argued that the onus shifted to the Council to provide a non-negligent explanation.

In relation to both cases Ms Morton failed, and the defenders were absolved of negligence. Whilst this was ultimately based on the particular facts of the case, the judgement is interesting for the more general comments made by Lord Glennie in relation to the nature of the duty of care, and his consideration of the shifting onus.

The Council conceded that if Ms Morton established that their drivers had deviated from their route then they were negligent. Whilst the nature of the duty was not, therefore, in issue, Lord Glennie made it quite clear that he considered the law in this area was not settled. In his view, to convert the general duty of care to road users into a specific duty to grit a particular road, by a particular time, would involve a pursuer demonstrating not only that the treatment was a requirement of the strategy adopted by the council, but that it was also a requirement of all strategies within the range of strategies that was open for adoption by the council. A specific duty could also be advanced if a pursuer could demonstrate an assumption of responsibility to grit the locus. Reliance on the policy of the Council, and the instruction to grit that morning would not be enough.

There was clearly an unwillingness on the part of Lord Glennie to accept that a duty could easily be imposed on a local authority that has been asked to exercise its discretion.

The judgement moved on to consider whether, and when, the burden of proof shifts in a case where there are many factors within the control of the defender, but where there are a number of crucial factors that are not. Whilst the gritting operations were within the Council's control, the weather, and its effect on treated roads, were not. It was the Council's position that the rain could have diluted the effect of the salt, thus causing black ice to form.

Lord Glennie acknowledged that the usual situation in which the onus of proof shifts to the defender to explain the loss occurred without his negligence is in a case where all the circumstances giving rise to the loss are within the control of the defender. He agreed with Ms Morton's submissions that there may be an extension of this principle where a pursuer can eliminate from the enquiry all possible causes outwith the control of the defenders. The weather conditions, therefore, were a factor that had to be excluded by Ms Morton before the onus shifted rather than proved by the Council, by way of non-negligent explanation, after that has occurred.

Although Lord Glennie has not ruled out the possibility of the onus shifting in a gritting case in the future, it is clear from his judgement that the difficulties that the pursuer would have in excluding the extraneous factors will be extraordinary. Ms Morton's agents have marked an appeal, and it may be that the appeal court will disagree with this assessment. However, that may also provide the defenders with the opportunity to revisit their concession, and allow a full consideration of the nature of the duty of care. Watch this space!

Contributed by Katy Nisbet

Subscribe to our news feeds

Keep up-to-date with all of our publications, legal updates, firm news and events.

Firm NewsLegal UpdatesSMIBEvents