16.—(1) Any highway to be constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the highway authority and must, unless otherwise agreed by the highway authority and the Authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the Authority for a period of 12 months from its completion and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the highway authority.
(2) Where a highway is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the highway must, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the highway authority, unless otherwise agreed, be maintained by and at the expense of the Authority for a period of 12 months from its completion and after the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the highway authority.
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to the structure of any bridge carrying a highway over a tramroad of the Authority or carrying a tramroad of the Authority over a highway and except as provided in those paragraphs the Authority is not liable to maintain the surface of any highway in, on, under or over which the scheduled works are constructed, or the immediate approaches to any such highway, unless otherwise agreed with the highway authority.
(4) In any action against the Authority in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by it to maintain a highway under this article, it is a defence (without affecting any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the Authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic.
(5) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (4), the court must in particular have regard to the following matters—
(a)the character of the highway including its use for a tramway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;
(b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic;
(c)the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway;
(d)whether the Authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; and
(e)where the Authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed,
but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant that the Authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of that part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the Authority had given the competent person proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that the competent person had carried out those instructions.