IT appears that in the Mendip and surrounding area we are plagued with roadworks.

Highway authorities in England and Wales have a legal duty to maintain public highways under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. This duty is central to ensuring the safety and usability of roads, pavements, footpaths, and other parts of the public highway network for all road users — including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Section 41(1) of the Act imposes a statutory duty on highway authorities to ensure that the highways for which they are responsible are “maintained in a state that is safe for ordinary traffic to use.” This includes structural maintenance (e.g. road surfaces), safety maintenance (e.g. removing hazards), and routine upkeep such as clearing drains or fixing signs.

The duty applies only to public highways, not private roads. Additionally, the extent of the duty can vary depending on the nature of the highway — a major road will demand a higher maintenance standard than a rural lane, due to expected traffic volumes and usage patterns.

Standards of maintenance: There is no single national standard imposed by statute; however, guidance on good practice is provided by documents such as the “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure” code of practice, published by the UK Roads Liaison Group. This recommends a risk-based approach to inspection, maintenance, and repair.

Authorities are expected to carry out regular inspections, prioritising roads based on usage and risk. For example: Busy urban roads may be inspected monthly or quarterly whereas lesser-used roads may be inspected annually.

When a defect (such as a pothole or raised paving slab) is identified, it should be categorised according to risk, and appropriate repair work scheduled. Authorities must also respond appropriately to public reports of defects.

If a road user is injured or suffers loss due to the state of disrepair of a highway, they may bring a claim against the authority in negligence or under section 41. Typical claims arise from potholes, uneven pavements, or other hazards.

To succeed, the claimant must prove that: (a) The highway was dangerously defective; (b) The defect caused the injury or damage, and; (c) The authority failed to take reasonable steps to remedy it.

However, under section 58 of the Act, the authority has a statutory defence: if it can show that it took all reasonable steps to maintain the highway — including proper inspection and repair regimes — it may not be liable, even if a defect caused harm. This makes proper record-keeping and risk-based maintenance critical for defending claims.

Highway authorities have a clear legal obligation to maintain public highways in a safe condition. While there is flexibility in how maintenance is carried out, the law expects authorities to act reasonably and proactively. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to claims for personal injury or property damage, but liability is not automatic — the courts balance public expectations of safety with the practical realities of managing large highway networks.

Edward Lyons