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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll