Car park gritting liability

[The Black Flash]

So it's winter and this old chestnut pops up. Carpark is covered in about an inch of sheet ice, but the company "can't grit it because then we'd be liable if anyone fell over".

Now to me, this sounds like the usual spineless arse-covering which blights the UK these days - but does anyone actually know for sure? Has anyone really sued their employer for gritting their carpark? Or would a court actually just throw such a case out?

[10 Pence Short]

The Black Flash said:

So it's winter and this old chestnut pops up. Carpark is covered in about an inch of sheet ice, but the company "can't grit it because then we'd be liable if anyone fell over".

Now to me, this sounds like the usual spineless arse-covering which blights the UK these days - but does anyone actually know for sure? Has anyone really sued their employer for gritting their carpark? Or would a court actually just throw such a case out?

Environment Agency North West office won't grit their car park for the same reason.

Much better to leave it treacherous and increase the risk of someone falling over than try and help and be sued for your trouble, apparantly.

[rfn]

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

[esselte]

rfn said:

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

Isn't it like the wet leaves situation...if an LA doesn't mess with them and someone slips then it can't be said to be the LA's fault whereas if they did sweep them up and someone then slipped on what was left behind the LA could be held accountable...?

[10 Pence Short]

esselte said:

rfn said:

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

Isn't it like the wet leaves situation...if an LA doesn't mess with them and someone slips then it can't be said to be the LA's fault whereas if they did sweep them up and someone then slipped on what was left behind the LA could be held accountable...?

Pretty much.

An organisation cannot be held responsible for the weather. They can be held responsible if they try to make it safe and do a bad job.

[Simpo Two]

Demand Compensation anyway.

[Overhaulin]

esselte said:

rfn said:

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

Isn't it like the wet leaves situation...if an LA doesn't mess with them and someone slips then it can't be said to be the LA's fault whereas if they did sweep them up and someone then slipped on what was left behind the LA could be held accountable...?

Think it comes under Force majeure or an "Act of God"

As a kid I was happy to dig out the path to the house and put salt down for pocket money, until someone told my dad that say the pstman slipped on the cleared path he could be held liable.

[The Black Flash]

10 Pence Short said:

esselte said:

rfn said:

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

Isn't it like the wet leaves situation...if an LA doesn't mess with them and someone slips then it can't be said to be the LA's fault whereas if they did sweep them up and someone then slipped on what was left behind the LA could be held accountable...?

Pretty much.

An organisation cannot be held responsible for the weather. They can be held responsible if they try to make it safe and do a bad job.

See, from my (hurried) reading of the H&S regs, that's just not true. They have a duty to take reasonable care that the person entering the land / premises is not injured by its act/s or emissions.
According to our beloved Pravda: http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/your_rights/personal...

"Supermarkets are under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their customers (and their customers' property) while they're using the supermarkets' premises. This could extend to gritting their car parks in icy weather conditions if the risk of skidding and/or slipping warranted this measure."

I find it hard to believe that any court would consider doing something badly to be worse than not doing it at all. I would have thought that this attempting to hide behind innaction will actually leave them just as liable if somebody does fall over.

[10 Pence Short]

The Black Flash said:

10 Pence Short said:

esselte said:

rfn said:

Surely, if you fell over, you can sue them for not gritting it, too?

Isn't it like the wet leaves situation...if an LA doesn't mess with them and someone slips then it can't be said to be the LA's fault whereas if they did sweep them up and someone then slipped on what was left behind the LA could be held accountable...?

Pretty much.

An organisation cannot be held responsible for the weather. They can be held responsible if they try to make it safe and do a bad job.

See, from my (hurried) reading of the H&S regs, that's just not true. They have a duty to take reasonable care that the person entering the land / premises is not injured by its act/s or emissions.
According to our beloved Pravda: http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/your_rights/personal...

"Supermarkets are under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their customers (and their customers' property) while they're using the supermarkets' premises. This could extend to gritting their car parks in icy weather conditions if the risk of skidding and/or slipping warranted this measure."

I find it hard to believe that any court would consider doing something badly to be worse than not doing it at all. I would have thought that this attempting to hide behind innaction will actually leave them just as liable if somebody does fall over.

I would imagine there has been case law regarding the issue, at some point.

[The Black Flash]

That's what I was hoping to find out!
Sometimes there is...all too often it's spinless jobsworths who are afraid that something might happen when it actually never would.

Compare with people who advise others not to give first aid because they could be sued in case anything went wrong. Has there ever been such a succesful case brought? Pretty sure there hasn't. But people still worry, despite the best course of action being obvious to everyone. It's just self-fulfilling cowardice.

[tlracing]

Notify the company concerned in writing and make sure it's dated and you've kept a copy.

Ideally, ask them to confirm your letter has been received (this may be possible with email, using 'request read receipt', but I'm not sure whether email is admissible in court nowadays).

That way, if anyone is injured, the company can't hide from their failure to adhere to 'duty of care'.