Responsibility for bridge?

[sandspider]

Hi all

Bit of a random question, but wondering if anyone on PW might have an idea...

We have a bridge crossing a little stream on our property, which provides access to our house and several neighbours. We and the neighbours share upkeep of the road (private /non-highways road) and in theory the bridge. The bridge is pretty ancient, though it seems in fairly good condition. I wonder where we'd stand legally if someone drove over it and fell through? I imagine we have a duty of care to keep an eye on it (no problem), but do we have to have it checked by surveyors etc.? I don't want anyone to fall through it, but also don't want to throw money at surveyors etc. (which I doubt the neighbours would want to contribute to, even though they use said bridge) if that's not necessary.

Would my keeping an eye on it, keeping a record of this (and fixing any obvious damage, which I would try and charge the neighbours their share) be enough to show that I've fulfilled my duty of care?

Any thoughts (ideally legal ish ones!) would be great.

Thanks.

[Vince Green]

Absolutely the reverse, stay out of it would be my advice. If you start doing things you are accepting liability should anything happen. Don't you have a road committee?

[oowee]

I have the same to here although its more of a pipe in a ditch. I put all this stuff down to taking reasonable precautions and making sure that you are insured. If the bridge is obviously dodgy then an inspection would be a reasonable step to take. If it looks fine then it would be reasonable to leave well alone. I have just had some large trees dropped and pollarded as they were clearly not in a safe state. 

 

[Guest]

I would check on your deeds .and see a solicitor and find out who is responsible for it

[figgy]

As above I would find out via deeds and legal people what the liability is, if any.

May be as simple as putting up a sign saying private road and used at your own risk or wording to that effect etc.

Edited December 5, 2018 by figgy

[ph5172]

I should imagine if you share the upkeep and it is on the deeds I would have thought you could get a 3rd party liability insurance policy sorted easily enough. 

We had one for a shared car park at the end of our road. It was liability and terrorism cover if I recall. 

[grrclark]

There are a few issues, what is your obligation towards the upkeep of the bridge and also what is your reasonable assessment towards the current state of the bridge.

If your obligation is that the bridge must be maintained to a standard that allow for regular passage of vehicles for you and ofher across that then you have to accede to that standard, if that obligation is shared then all have to stand their share.

If there is no obligation, but you think the bridge is shaky and not fit for purpose, and can live with the consequences of it failing, then shut up and say nothing and give no indication of being at all cognisant of any problems.

If you are wholly reliable for the bridge in all aspects and you know it’s shaky, but if there is no right of passage for others then deny them access and take your chances.

Most important above all else, get formal legal guidance and ignore all PW commentary unless it’s by a lawyer with knowledge in this area. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by grrclark

[Dave-G]

As said absolutely take legal advice. If it were me I'd be mindful what potentially happens if you clear ice from a pavement etc...

You could/might be deemed to have caused an injury/issue by interfering/tampering with it. Think blame games.

[sandspider]

Thanks all.

We don't have a road committee, it's just a little hamlet. We share the access road (shared responsibility for maintenance, we each own different parts of it, everyone has a right of access down it) but the bridge is on our bit! Don't think any of the neighbours would want to play blame games, but not sure about deliveries etc. Will talk to my house insurance. If they wouldn't cover it, some sort of indemnity insurance might be wise.

I think it's in pretty good shape - I was just wondering if I need to have it profesionally inspected or anything. Sounds like that's probably not necessary as long as it looks in reasonable condition. Cheers.

[peck]

If the bridge is on " your bit" then surely it is your responsibility. 

[CharlieT]

As the occupier, you will, in law, have a duty of care for those who enter your land and use your road and bridge.

If someone was injured whilst using the bridge and subsequently sued you as the occupier, you would need to demonstrate, in court, that the bridge (ie you) were not responsible.

At the very least you need specific occupiers liability insurance in place and a paper trail detailing the bridge inspection, preferably by a qualified person, and any repairs carried out. 

Do check that your home insurance covers occupiers liability for the road and bridge, and if not get some in place.

[Lloyd90]

How long have you lived there? 

Surely this would have been covered when you bought the house and had survey done on the home and property? 

[sandspider]

2 hours ago, peck said:

If the bridge is on " your bit" then surely it is your responsibility. 

Yes, I know it is - I just want to know what I need to do to have shown a duty of care.

36 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

As the occupier, you will, in law, have a duty of care for those who enter your land and use your road and bridge.

If someone was injured whilst using the bridge and subsequently sued you as the occupier, you would need to demonstrate, in court, that the bridge (ie you) were not responsible.

At the very least you need specific occupiers liability insurance in place and a paper trail detailing the bridge inspection, preferably by a qualified person, and any repairs carried out. 

Do check that your home insurance covers occupiers liability for the road and bridge, and if not get some in place.

I've spoken to my insurer, and we have public liability insurance that would cover bridge collapse! So all is well.

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

How long have you lived there? 

Surely this would have been covered when you bought the house and had survey done on the home and property? 

It was, but only in basic terms - "everyone agrees to contribute to maintain shared access to the lane" or similar. The bridge isn't mentioned specifically. In retrospect, our conveyancers weren't too good, or thorough.

[Stonepark]

I would suggest, especially if your deeds are unclear on liability and responsibility that put a limit sign on the bridge of 3tonne.

It is unlikely normal vehicles /lgvs will give an issue (1.5t per axle)  if the bridge is well constructed and showing no issues, the problem will be if someone gets a delivery of ready mix (3 axles, short wheelbase) each at their 13t maximum loading) or other large HGV.

[sandspider]

[Bigbob]

Put a weight limit on it seems okay , if your prepared to take your buckets to the other side of the bridge so the council motor can uplift them and any other heavy vehicle that might deliver to you 

[ph5172]

From what I have read your insurance is in place and has confirmed the level of cover of which you are happy. The bridge appears to the untrained eye to be in a good state of repair with no major damage and has stood the test of time for X amount of years. 

I think you have done more than most would so I would leave it at that. 

On a side note below is the inspection regime in Shropshire 

Planned inspections

Every three years we carry out a ‘general inspection’ of our bridges.

Every six years we carry out a more detailed close visual inspection (known as a ‘principal inspection’) of our more complex and larger structures

Edited December 6, 2018 by ph5172

[sandspider]

20 hours ago, Bigbob said:

Put a weight limit on it seems okay , if your prepared to take your buckets to the other side of the bridge so the council motor can uplift them and any other heavy vehicle that might deliver to you 

We already take the bins etc. over the bridge to the main road. And nothing too big (and hopefully heavy) could fit over the bridge anyway!

16 hours ago, ph5172 said:

From what I have read your insurance is in place and has confirmed the level of cover of which you are happy. The bridge appears to the untrained eye to be in a good state of repair with no major damage and has stood the test of time for X amount of years. 

I think you have done more than most would so I would leave it at that. 

On a side note below is the inspection regime in Shropshire 

Planned inspections

Every three years we carry out a ‘general inspection’ of our bridges.

Every six years we carry out a more detailed close visual inspection (known as a ‘principal inspection’) of our more complex and larger structures

Cheers, that seems a reasonable inspection regime. (I do our trees more often, but they're more likely to change than a bridge is...)

[Dibble]

On 05/12/2018 at 18:08, Stonepark said:

It is unlikely normal vehicles /lgvs will give an issue (1.5t per axle)  if the bridge is well constructed and showing no issues, the problem will be if someone gets a delivery of ready mix (3 axles, short wheelbase) each at their 13t maximum loading) or other large HGV.

They can't all be at 13t because the truck would weigh too much, however when I worked with trucks our local building supplies company told their driver that he could take 12+10+10t. The driver was Indian and didn't speak much English, the owners didn't understand how O licenses worked, the company now has new owners.