Description
It was held on appeal that the trial judge had erred in finding that the Claimant had not proved his case on the balance of probabilities when there was photographic evidence and expert evidence to support M's case of the footpath being in a dangerous state. The judge had given too much weight to the fact that no previous accidents had occurred in the alleged location and that M had been uncertain about where exactly the accident had occurred. The trial judge had been wrong to dismiss the claim.
