Liability for clearing icy pavements?

[Cobby]

Hi,

Someone made comment today that it's a bad idea for shop owners to attempt to de-ice the pavements outside their premises as any subsequent falls/injuries are their responsibility. However, leaving the snow/ice alone absolves one of any responsibility.

I can quite believe this is possibly the case but it seems absurd not to try and make things safe for the public, your customers or not.

Is this true?

 

[yorkshirejames]

Could well be an urban myth.

 

[Bri]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3453039.stm

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

I've heard this also from a pub owner with steps up to the door.

The theory being:

If you slip on ice that's an act of god and not the owners fault.

If the owner puts something on the ground and you slip on that then they become liable. The scenario I expect is someone slipping on the loose salt/grit.

I don't know the real legalites/liabilities so could be a myth but in the current compensation culture it does seem to be best not to try and help anyone.

 

[Cobby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3453039.stm

A firm answer. Thanks.
They mention in the article wanting to change things, does anybody know if any changes have taken place?

 

[matt.chatterley]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3453039.stm

Absolute madness. No wonder things are such a mess!

 

[cjd]

This is one of those silly things that Brits get obsessed with but carry no real risk whatsoever.

If you clean the step/pavement of snow then put salt on it, you've made it safe and no-one is going to come to any harm are they?

But just imagine if you do a really crap job and somebody slips:

a) what are the chances of them being hurt?
b) what are chances they would try to sue you?
c) what are the chances that they could prove it was because of your work that they fell?
d) what are the chances that a court would agree with them?

Vanishingly small I'd say.

 

[Zeno]

This is one of those silly things that Brits get obsessed with but carry no real risk whatsoever.

If you clean the step/pavement of snow then put salt on it, you've made it safe and no-one is going to come to any harm are they?

But just imagine if you do a really crap job and somebody slips:

a) what are the chances of them being hurt?
b) what are chances they would try to sue you?
c) what are the chances that they could prove it was because of your work that they fell?
d) what are the chances that a court would agree with them?

Vanishingly small I'd say.

A few years ago I might have agreed with you but with the growth industry that dubious no win, no fee legal services has become the chance is increasing all the time.

I suppose the thinking will go that If you cleared the snow you assessed it as a risk. If you did it half arsed and therefore did not take any further action you can see the opening you have left for these weasels.

 

[cjd]

If people completely and utterly and totally clear away all snow and return the pavement to the situation it was in before the snow landed, they have done an excellent job

Lord Davies of Oldham

Just do the job properly, don't pile the snow up where it will cause another problem and you've got nothing to worry about at all.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

Just do the job properly, don't pile the snow up where it will cause another problem and you've got nothing to worry about at all.


[/size]

What if it refreezes, a very cautious area in the blame/claim compensation culture. And the claim could come months after the event. What if someone slips on the grit! Grit on smooth concrete can be like marbles.

It's a real shame, I hate it, but unfortunately its got to the point where your best not trying to help anyone as the risk far outweighs any thanks.

 

[An Oasis]

This is one of those silly things that Brits get obsessed with but carry...

...the might of our idiotic legal system. Without which life would probably be better for the country as a whole.

 

[cjd]

What if it refreezes, a very cautious area in the blame/claim compensation culture. And the claim could come months after the event. What if someone slips on the grit! Grit on smooth concrete can be like marbles.

It's a real shame, I hate it, but unfortunately its got to the point where your best not trying to help anyone as the risk far outweighs any thanks.

Oh please. Get some sense. Do the right thing regardless of your imaginary consequences - this kind of thinking is total sh1te and you know it.

 

[cjd]

...the might of our idiotic legal system. Without which life would probably be better for the country as a whole.

Please produce 2 successful prosecutions for the offence of clearing snow from outside owner's premises.

 

[mcjoyes]

The local authority is responsible for clearing snow and ice from the public highways and pavements. Under the Highways Act 1980, the council must ensure that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.

Private landowners are not obliged to clear snow or ice from the public highway or pavement. In fact from a legal point of view it may be risky for private individuals to clear these areas. By clearing snow you can create a danger and if someone is injured, you may be liable for negligence.

On your own land, it is a different matter. You owe visitors a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to take reasonable care to ensure that they are reasonably safe. This means that if you know someone (such as customers or a postman) is likely to walk on your property, and you also know that it is slippery, you must take reasonable steps to keep those people safe.

However, you should not simply brush the snow on to the public pavement. It is also a public nuisance to block the pavement of the road by sweeping snow from your property on to the highway.

A bit complicated, but that is the current position.

 

[saxondale]

The local authority is responsible for clearing snow and ice from the public highways and pavements. Under the Highways Act 1980, the council must ensure that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.

Private landowners are not obliged to clear snow or ice from the public highway or pavement. In fact from a legal point of view it may be risky for private individuals to clear these areas. By clearing snow you can create a danger and if someone is injured, you will be liable for negligence.

On your own land, it is a different matter. You owe visitors a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to take reasonable care to ensure that they are reasonably safe. This means that if you know someone (such as customers or a postman) is likely to walk on your property, and you also know that it is slippery, you must take reasonable steps to keep those people safe.

However, you should not simply brush the snow on to the public pavement. It is also a public nuisance to block the pavement of the road by sweeping snow from your property on to the highway.

A bit complicated, but that is the current position.

may - not will, may

 

[mcjoyes]

Yes, my mistype - "may" it is.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

Please produce 2 successful prosecutions for the offence of clearing snow from outside owner's premises.

I can't answer that without a bit of research, but i'm more confident you couldn't find 2 successful prosecutions for someone NOT clearing snow/ice from outside a premises?

If I phoned all the personal injury lawyers in the yellow pages tomorrow and said I was injured on a section of pavement a shopkeeper had personally tried to clear. Would at least 2 of them want to talk about it in more detail?

 

[cjd]

By clearing snow you can create a danger and if someone is injured, you may be liable for negligence.

Can you explain how you create a danger?

 

[cjd]

I can't answer that without a bit of research

So where EXACTLY is you fear of clearing the ice off your doorstep coming from?

If I phoned all the personal injury lawyers in the yellow pages tomorrow and said I was injured on a section of pavement a shopkeeper had personally tried to clear. Would at least 2 of them want to talk about it in more detail?

Please try it and report back how successful you are.

 

[mcjoyes]

How could you create a danger? By not clearing snow or ice properly, or pushing cleared snow into walkways, or by not repeating the clearing as needed throughout the day, or by clearing visible snow but not gritting and hence leaving black ice.

Just a few suggestions.

The point I am making is to answer the original post: not get into a debate on whether the risk is acceptable or not.

The answer to the original post is that liability begins when you interfere with a public highway and create a danger.

The question of whether you clear the area or not is not down to whether the law says its okay or not - the law around liability is never that prescriptive - it is down to whether you accept the risks from what you do. The risk of course is based on the likelihood and consequence of the hazard, so if the likelihood of an injury is considered low and the consequences low then why not? But that is a decision for the original poster, as they would be the one accepting the risk.

 

[yorkshirejames]

This morning at about 7am I noticed an old bloke on the floor in the snow on Hitchin High Street. Against H&S good practice, I stopped the car (on double yellow lines) got out, and went to try and help him up. Another bloke did the same. Doubtless the HR best-practice people will say that he should have been left there to die, and then the council department who deal with roadcleaning will risk assess the best way to remove the body.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

This morning at about 7am I noticed an old bloke on the floor in the snow on Hitchin High Street. Against H&S good practice, I stopped the car (on double yellow lines) got out, and went to try and help him up. Another bloke did the same. Doubtless the HR best-practice people will say that he should have been left there to die, and then the council department who deal with roadcleaning will risk assess the best way to remove the body.

I'm suprised you didn't get a parking ticket!

 

[Dawg]

Did a little digging, (ho ho), into this yesterday and found this from John McQuater, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, in The Guradain:

"By clearing the snow from your paths, you do not invite any extra liability that wouldn't have existed had you done nothing and left the snow on the ground. The only circumstance in which you might invite a claim was if you acted completely unreasonably, and somehow created a new latent hazard that had not existed before your actions."

Which seems to suggest that we get on and do what we know is the right thing, and in the extremely unlikely outcome that you are approached by a No Win No Fee shyster, just PALON, (Punch A Lawyer On the Nose--metaphorically and figuratively, natch).

 

[MrsPWN]

This happened 3 miles from where I live
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...praised-by-family-and-service-91466-25542824/

 

[cjd]

Still waiting for evidence of a single successful (or even unsuccessful) claim for this mythical offense.

Pure bullsh1t. It seems that we actively want it to be true. Something in our national psyche.

 

[cjd]

Mrs Parker (on a winter holiday) was told by her tour operator's representatives not to proceed beyond a red light on a toboggan run. She did and was injured and she sued. She thought that there ought to have been a member of staff on hand to prevent her from proceeding past the red light. The Trial Judge (the ever sound and excellent HHJ Simpkiss of Brighton County Court and DCJ for Surrey, Sussex and Kent) dismissed her claim.

As did the Court of Appeal Longmore LJ:

I cannot bring myself to hold that it is the duty of a tour operator dealing with rational adults on a winter holiday to repeat simple warnings already given with clarity or to point out obvious dangers of ice on the road and the relative safety of snow at its side. So to hold would only encourage potential claimants to believe that whenever an injury occurs someone must be to blame. That is not what the law of negligence is about.

Common sense prevailed again.

http://ofinteresttosomelawyers.blogspot.com/

In practice, the courts have more common sense that the News of the Screws and Daily Wail would have you believe.

 

[Clodbuster]

Is the modern Homo sapien incapable of looking after his own two feet? It is your head, your feet - look after yourself.

 

[skyhi2]

Interesting thread and much sensible advice.

Just to throw this in to the discussion,our local shopping area has cleared pathways to the supermarket ( Asda ) and about 30 units ( shops ).

They have scraped off the snow,but left ice behind.

They have also printed out,and wrapped in plastic ( at a shoddy attempt at making them water resistant ) some A4 posters saying, " beware of the ice,enter this shopping area at your own risk ".

In my opinion they have made the surfaces ( block paving ) they have attempted to clean much more dangerous.

Can this indeed be a legal notice ?

I know the walking areas/car parks are privately owned by a conglomerate,and not by any of the shops,or the council,although there is a council run market on the site too.

Skyhi2.

 

[cjd]

Can this indeed be a legal notice ?

It's not a 'legal' notice, it's an attempt to reduce their liability by providing a warning. Whether it works is dubious - you can't remove your duty of care by sticking up notices. Cars and coats are NOT left solely at the owners risk, regardless of what notices say.

Make up your own mind:

Any action against a person who has cleared a pavement would have to be based on common law action for negligence. Very basically, the claimant would have to establish (a) that the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant; (b) that the duty had been breached and (c) that damage (e.g. injury) was caused by that breach. That is the "very basic" position since actions in tort (=civil wrong) are governed by complex rules which can vary from one situation to another. Another factor is that, even if the claimant establishes (a), (b) and (c) then there might still be the contributory negligence of the claimant to take into account. Thus, a claimant who did not take proper care for himself might be found to have contributed to his own injuries and his award of damages reduced accordingly.

 

[skyhi2]

That was my thoughts too cjd.

The notices remain,unlike the snow/ice which has all but gone.

Skyhi2.

 

[cjd]

That was my thoughts too cjd.

but....................

.... civil law does not impose a duty of care too readily. One factor is that it must be "fair, just and reasonable" to do so: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.

 

[sandgrownun]

Occupiers Liability Act 1957. You are required to take reasonable steps to ensure the reasonable safety of visitors to your premises (and to trespassers under the later act but I will ignore that here). What is reasonable is specific to the particular circumstances.

 

[Dawg]

I think it would be reasonable to ban the word reasonable from all reasonable legislation, (as far as was ..), because it seems to be a weasel word that generates income for lawyers, absolving those passing legislation from doing a halfway reasonable job in defining the law.

 

[Clodbuster]

I think it would be reasonable to expect reasonable people to take responsible care of their own two feet - it is snowing - it is icy - take care. Why shift your responsibility onto someone else?

 

[cjd]

Let's not forget 'proportionate' either

 

[sandgrownun]

OK Dawg, define reasonable in this context. Then define it for a trip on a field, then define it for a trip on a suburban street, then for a trip on a street with high footfall... etc. etc. The law is laid out in the Occupiers Liability Act for private property, The Highways Act for adopted highways and in the case of Mills v Barnsley Council. Your comment about lawyers is unnecessary and a tad bitter. Yes we earn pleanty of money because we earn it. Try it sometime and see how far you get.

 

[sandgrownun]

... and well said clodbuster. Unfortunately some people wil always try and claim for their own stupidity.

 

[Zeno]

Your comment about lawyers is unnecessary and a tad bitter. Yes we earn pleanty of money because we earn it..

Do you really want to start this debate?

 

[cjd]

Mrs. Robertson, an eighty year-old widow, visits her solicitors to make a small adjustment to her will. She has been a client of the firm for more than fifty years, and the senior solicitor who looks after her affairs rapidly notes her instructions and promises to get the job done straight away. The client reaches into her bag and takes out a small container. "I have just brought along a couple of my home made cakes. I hope you like them. One other thing; to save trouble, let me settle your bill now, rather than waiting for you to send it in". "Well thank you" says the lawyer. "As an old client, shall we call it fifty pounds?"

The old lady handed over a fifty pound note, and prepared to leave.

Later, the lawyer was about to put the note into his wallet (such a small sum being too trivial to trouble the tax authorities with) when he noted that he had been given two new fifty pound notes that were stuck together.

So here is the ethical dilemma he faced:-

Should I tell my partners?

 

[Dawg]

OK Dawg, define reasonable in this context. Then define it for a trip on a field, then define it for a trip on a suburban street, then for a trip on a street with high footfall... etc. etc. The law is laid out in the Occupiers Liability Act for private property, The Highways Act for adopted highways and in the case of Mills v Barnsley Council. Your comment about lawyers is unnecessary and a tad bitter. Yes we earn pleanty of money because we earn it. Try it sometime and see how far you get.

Several points Sandgrownun:

I fully understand the need to to encapsulate legislation tightly, and the use of wording that allows for interpretation. I also think that it is an over used legislative phenomena, and that with more thought most legislation could be more precise.

Precision in law is important not only to define what is and what is not permitted for the citizens, but also to prevent the Executive from abusing badly framed legislation. (I include too loosely framed in badly framed).

Beyond that, it was an ironic comment on the subject, which irony I'm sorry you didn't pick up. I thought I had laid it on with a shovel so all lawyers could understand.

The use of irony is as old as the criticism of lawyers: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI, (part 2),Act IV, Scene II) was written in 1591, and I'm sure there are earlier, derogatory references to lawyers, chariot chasers and the ilk. Bitterness is not involved, nor rancour. Perhaps a slightly jovial animosity taking small pleasure in pricking pomposity?

As for earning "..pleanty (sic) of money because we earn it..", that phrase alone makes me smile. The Law is one of the last effective old fashioned trades unions. Without the unnecessary barriers to entry many of the third rate minds who practice would struggle to earn the minimum wage. So enjoy earning "pleanty of money because you earn it"*, but don't pretend that what a lot of lawyers do reaches dizzy heights of competence even.

*Copywriting might not be worth considering as a career change.