header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 June 2018 / Cathrine Grubb
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

An adjacent duty of care?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7796_grubb

If a hedgerow or tree is a risk to motorists, can the landowner be held liable? Cathrine Grubb investigates

  • Are owners of land adjoining the highway liable for risks to motorists such as vegetation that restricts visibility?
  • Reviews the case of Sumner v Colborne & Others.

Accidents at road junctions are not unusual. However, in the case of Sumner v Colborne & Others [2018] EWCA Civ 1006 such an accident gave rise to a novel question: can owners of land adjoining the highway be liable for dangers on their land that make the highway more dangerous? The judgment in Sumner not only deals with this issue but provides a helpful illustration of how to determine whether a duty of care exists in novel cases.

The collision

The danger in Sumner was vegetation planted on adjoining land that severely restricted the visibility at a junction on the A494. The A494 had a 60-mph speed limit. Guidelines for the development of new junctions require stopping distance sight of at least 122m on such roads. The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll