Re standing on highway

Quantum Erasure

is there anything to be said for being a bit accommodating for a quiet life?

the_pen_turner

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

is there anything to be said for being a bit accommodating for a quiet life?

that aplies to both parties

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with TheBoyConor. Waiting in the street to meet a friend by appointment is definitely a reasonable purpose for which it is normal to use the highway.

And, even if it isn't, the consequence is that the person doing the waiting is a trespasser. But simple trespass is not a crime and the guards are not going to do anything about it. The landowner can sue the person doing the waiting for damages; he'll need to prove the damage he has suffered by having someone wait for a friend in the street outside his house. Good luck with that.

It is not necessary to prove damage in trespass unlike tort.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not necessary to prove damage in trespass unlike tort.

Yes, but, actual loss must be shown for any significant level of damages, otherwise it's nominal damages only.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It could well be that the householder has title to the middle of the public road.
In Clerk & Lindsell, The Law of Torts, 17th ed. (1995), para. 17-41 the current state of the law as to the question of use is summarised in these terms:

"The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable purposes as it is usual to use the highway; if a member of the public uses it for any other purpose than that of passing and repassing he will be a trespasser."

The issue then is whether it is reasonable to stand waiting for a lift at the side of the road if it is owned by an adjacent householder.

That is the position at common law long held since the Harrison vs Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 Q.B. 142 case, Lord Esher recognised that there was reasonable or usual uses of the highway beyond that of just passing and repassing:-

Harrison vs Duke of Rutland (1893) 1 Q.B. 142 wrote:

Highways are, no doubt, dedicated prima facie for the purpose of passage; but things are done upon them by everybody which are recognised as being rightly done, and as constituting a reasonable and usual mode of using a highway as such. If a person on a highway does not transgress such reasonable and usual mode of using it, I do not think that he will be a trespasser

It was clarified in the Hickman vs Maisey [1900] 1 Q.B. 752 case that someone resting/stopped at the side of a highway can not be a trespasser as it was a reasonable use of the highway.

There is little on the topic here in the modern era, but, in 1999 the House of Lords reaffirmed this position.

Peregrinus

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

is there anything to be said for being a bit accommodating for a quiet life?

the_pen_turner wrote: »

that aplies to both parties

True. But the OP cannot decide whether the householder with the objection will choose a quiet life. He can only decide whether he will do that himself.

I'm not telling the OP what he should do, because he's a big boy and can make up his own mind. If it were me, I do have quite a strong general preference for a quiet life and I would probably look to see if there is some other spot where I can conveniently meet my friend that isn't beset by neurotic householders. But if the OP prefers to make his stand were he is, the law is on his side.

Jim_Hodge

Are there not houses either side that you can wait in front of?

Donald Trump

Conmhara wrote: »

Good point! Here's the spot in question

That doesn't look like a very safe place to stand. How wide is it between the road and the wall?

So you just stand there, not touching or leaning against, or sitting on the wall?

You have to be careful when it comes to messing with a man's wall!!!!!