Description
The trial judge had not erred in implicitly accepting a witness' evidence as truthful despite not clearly expressing his reasoning and consequent findings.
A local authority appealed against a decision that it had breached its duty of care owed to the Claimant when she had fallen crossing a grass verge outside her house due an averred hole in the car. During the trial the judge considered a number of photographs of the verge taken at least 3 years after the accident which the Claimant suggested was similar to the size of the whole, albeit it was deeper at the time of the accident. The judge held she was a truthful witness and awarded her damages. The local authority appealed on the basis that the judge had made no clear findings on the nature and size of the hole, and that he had inferred that the hole was dangerous from the mere fact that the Claimant had fallen and that she had complained. The appeal was refused on the basis that the judge, in referring to evidence of the Claimant's foot getting stuck and of her stepping into the hole seemed to accept that there was a hole and that it was large enough for an adult to step into. The judge had accepted the deta ils of the Claimant's account as an honest witness even though he had not expressly found that the hole was deep enough to be able to get stuck in and had not made any findings about the hole's dimensions.
