Icy car park liability
Discussion
We visited an antiques centre yesterday and the car park was very icy where it was shaded by the building. I mentioned this to the staff and was told that they couldn't do anything about it because if they did and someone fell over, they'd be liable.
I said that I didn't think that was true but which one of us is correct?
I said that I didn't think that was true but which one of us is correct?
I've been through this nonsense on many occasions in a previous life when I worked in Housing.
The place I worked at refused to grit or clear any pavements and car parks used by our hundreds of elderly residents, on the grounds that if they just left the snow and ice it was 'just nature and weather' and nothing to do with them, but if they attempted to clear it they would be sued for not clearing it properly if someone fell.
This went of for years until they took legal advice and a solicitor told them that they couldn't be sued for attempting to clear paths of Ice if someone fell.
They then spoke to a different solicitor who advised them differently...
Edited to add:
The official government line is as follows - "You can clear snow and ice from pavements yourself. It’s unlikely that you’ll be sued or held responsible if someone is injured on a path or pavement if you’ve cleared it carefully"
I have to admit, reading worlds like 'unlikely' and 'if you've cleared it carefully' do not inspire confidence.
The place I worked at refused to grit or clear any pavements and car parks used by our hundreds of elderly residents, on the grounds that if they just left the snow and ice it was 'just nature and weather' and nothing to do with them, but if they attempted to clear it they would be sued for not clearing it properly if someone fell.
This went of for years until they took legal advice and a solicitor told them that they couldn't be sued for attempting to clear paths of Ice if someone fell.
They then spoke to a different solicitor who advised them differently...
Edited to add:
The official government line is as follows - "You can clear snow and ice from pavements yourself. It’s unlikely that you’ll be sued or held responsible if someone is injured on a path or pavement if you’ve cleared it carefully"
I have to admit, reading worlds like 'unlikely' and 'if you've cleared it carefully' do not inspire confidence.
Edited by NinjaPower on Tuesday 3rd January 10:18
Riley Blue said:
We visited an antiques centre yesterday and the car park was very icy where it was shaded by the building. I mentioned this to the staff and was told that they couldn't do anything about it because if they did and someone fell over, they'd be liable.
I said that I didn't think that was true but which one of us is correct?
It's an urban myth that any attempt to clear it leaves them liable if it's not 110%...I said that I didn't think that was true but which one of us is correct?
They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
i went to wickes on 29th around 8am, as i stepped out of the car it was instantly noticable the car park was VERY icy, could easily slide across the tarmac in trainers. as i gingerly crossed the car park a chap and an employee walked out. The chap made a comment to me to be careful as he had slipped over, the employee's reply was exactly as above, if we grit the car park and miss a bit we will be liable!!! so they would rather NOT do it at all. 
was amazed tbh as we would always do as much as possible to stop employees and customer risking an injury. so 5 mins inside wickes and i walk out with 10ltrs of paint slide across the car park ( in control just) and notice 3/4 more wickes staff all with bags of grit spreading across the car park so at least someone had some common sense.
was amazed tbh as we would always do as much as possible to stop employees and customer risking an injury. so 5 mins inside wickes and i walk out with 10ltrs of paint slide across the car park ( in control just) and notice 3/4 more wickes staff all with bags of grit spreading across the car park so at least someone had some common sense. This is a common myth, and it couldn't be more wrong. Government ministers have got it wrong on national radio before now.
There is a duty to clear snow and ice under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. It doesn't specifically mention snow and ice but it falls under the general duties to visitors. This duty also applies to householders and lawful visitors to your home and property, e.g. the postman.
"The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there."
The only way that the business could be held liable if they do clear the snow and ice is if they made such a bad job of it they negligently made the situation worse - e.g. by using hot water to thaw ice that subsequently froze.
See http://www.mills-reeve.com/occupier-duties-for-sno...
There is a duty to clear snow and ice under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. It doesn't specifically mention snow and ice but it falls under the general duties to visitors. This duty also applies to householders and lawful visitors to your home and property, e.g. the postman.
"The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there."
The only way that the business could be held liable if they do clear the snow and ice is if they made such a bad job of it they negligently made the situation worse - e.g. by using hot water to thaw ice that subsequently froze.
See http://www.mills-reeve.com/occupier-duties-for-sno...
I suspect there are many instances in law where if you don't do anything, it's fine, but if you do something, then you have to do it properly.
A spare tyre at MOT time springs to mind. Ok not to have one, but if you do have one, it has to be legal.
I'm sure a smart lawyer could argue that his postman client took great care on icy paths, but when he saw a path had been gritted, he was entitled to think it had been gritted properly. Therefore, when he broke his leg when he hit a bit the home owner had missed, the home owner was to blame.
A spare tyre at MOT time springs to mind. Ok not to have one, but if you do have one, it has to be legal.
I'm sure a smart lawyer could argue that his postman client took great care on icy paths, but when he saw a path had been gritted, he was entitled to think it had been gritted properly. Therefore, when he broke his leg when he hit a bit the home owner had missed, the home owner was to blame.
TooMany2cvs said:
It's an urban myth that any attempt to clear it leaves them liable if it's not 110%...
They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
Would negligence come down to who had responsibility for the car park?They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
If so would that be the owner of the land or the 'operator' if its one of those pay to park arrangements?
Ahbefive said:
Josho said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A spare tyre at MOT time springs to mind. Ok not to have one, but if you do have one, it has to be legal.
Not true. "This inspection applies to tyres fitted to the road wheels only.
The vehicle presenter should be informed when it is noticed that there is a defective tyre on a spare wheel."
Ahbefive said:
Josho said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A spare tyre at MOT time springs to mind. Ok not to have one, but if you do have one, it has to be legal.
Not true. 2.12 Tyres and wheels
These will be inspected to check for:
•condition
•security
•tyre size and type
•tread depth
Spare wheels and tyres are not inspected.
Vehicles first used on or after 1 January 2012 will be checked to make sure the tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS) MIL is working.
TooMany2cvs said:
It's an urban myth that any attempt to clear it leaves them liable if it's not 110%...
They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
So is it negligent not to try?They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
We had the same situation at work years ago in the private car park, the facilities people decided not to do anything in case of being made liable. The one winter it snowed a lot and didnt get much above freezing for a week, the end result was about 3 inches of sheet ice wherever people or vehicles went, absolutely lethal. They changed their minds at some point after and go all out to clear it with mini bulldozer things, tons of grit etc.
Josho said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A spare tyre at MOT time springs to mind. Ok not to have one, but if you do have one, it has to be legal.
Not true. GSalt said:
The Occupier has the duty, which could be an owner-occupier or could be a tenant.
Cheers.I can see where this now becomes a 'cloudy' arrangement of liability.
One occupier is fairly straight forward (I guess), but a car park with multiple occupiers/tenants is likely a different story.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I suspect there are many instances in law where if you don't do anything, it's fine, but if you do something, then you have to do it properly.
In some circumstances there's a distinction between making a decision not to do something and not acting by default. Although this will tend to mitigate negligence rather than excuse it.The other related myth is around first aid. No one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for providing first aid assistance.
Disregarding comments about spare wheels and cups of tea for a moment, it occurred to me that many supermarkets and other establishments open to the public grit and salt their car parks during the winter. I'm sure they wouldn't if it left them open to claims for liability and/or negligence.
Atomic12C said:
Cheers.
I can see where this now becomes a 'cloudy' arrangement of liability.
One occupier is fairly straight forward (I guess), but a car park with multiple occupiers/tenants is likely a different story.
I was thinking that, particularly with out-of-town shopping estates and similar arrangements. But in those cases there's usually a management company that will be the occupier as far as the car park is concerned, but the individual stores will likely take responsibility for the immediate area outside their door (if only to reduce snow/ice being trampled in and onto the floor of the store).I can see where this now becomes a 'cloudy' arrangement of liability.
One occupier is fairly straight forward (I guess), but a car park with multiple occupiers/tenants is likely a different story.
I should admit at this point to being a health and safety adviser.. and contrary to public perception most of the laws on this are common sense when you really look at them (and ignore those who's interests are in making them seem more complicated than they are). Common sense and courtesy says you should clear snow and ice for the benefit of visitors and customers, and oddly enough that's what the law says too (and has said since at least 1957).
Marvtec said:
TooMany2cvs said:
It's an urban myth that any attempt to clear it leaves them liable if it's not 110%...
They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
So is it negligent not to try?They're liable if they're negligent, whether they've tried or not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff