Personal Injury

[mike11111]

Given the appalling state of the pavements during the recent bad weather I was very surprised and disappointed that they have been left untreated. When asking why, I get the usual 'elf'n safety' drivel about the possibility of someone being sued as a result of a fall on a cleared pavement. As personal injury claims lie in the tort of negligence, and taking into account the 'neighbour' principle expounded by Lord Atkins in Donohue v Stevenson, does any practising lawyer know of any case in which someone has successfully sued as a a result of an injury caused by someone clearing his pathway/pavement of snow, or is this just another urban myth which needs to be firmly debunked?

p.s. The staff at the sheltered housing complex where I live are not allowed to clear away snow, though residents may do so at their own risk!

[pink-kittens]

it snowed, you might slip over on the ensuing ice - it's called an accident. Period - no one to blame but yourself for not being more careful

[factor-fiction]

It's an urban myth. A government spokesman recently tried to debunk this myth in a speech about health and safety. You could only be sued in exceptional circumstances- for example if you deliberately made matters worse

[mike11111]

I thought so. The paths and car park at my doctors' surgery have been like a skating rink for two weeks. Best place to have an accident, I suppose.
Our local council finally got round to gritting the pavements in the town centre on Thursday, just as the thaw started.

[mike11111]

p.s. I can understand Joe Public falling for this guff, but professional people and public bodies?

[Postdog]

I can't answer that, but your post reminded me that there have been some really stupid payouts for stupid reasons, so whether there actually has been such a claim made, it makes sense (to them) to err on the side of caution.

[mike11111]

Yes, but 'tripper' claims are usually paid out because it's cheaper than fighting the case and winning against someone who has no assets. I still would like to know of a case which has gone to court and compensation has been awarded against the person who shovelled snow form his pah.

[mike11111]

form his pah
That was meant to read 'from his path'.

[TWR]

Given thought to you Qs Mike, the local councils are responsible for the conditions of the Footpaths & are owned by the councils, I would have thought that If a person Tripped & fell due to ill repair the council are Liable, We as the general public cannot grit the footpaths but that should be done by the councils as they used to do, ( Am I right? I would have thought that it is the local councils duty of care to grit the footpaths & if someone fell due to the condition they should be sued. NO, I am not a person that sues for no reason before that gets said.

[bednobs]

common sense needs to prevail. We gritted our pavements on the stretch outside our house (row of six) because frankly, i didn't want to slip getting to my car!

[bednobs]

by the way, did the council tell you it was health and safety? personally i think it's more likely they dont have the money, time or inclination to do it

[boxtops]

It's private property which is often the slippy bits (e.g. the GP surgery you mention) and our own front paths, I have steps leading down to my front door so we always clear and chuck down a bit of cat litter to try to keep it clear (clean cat litter, I hasten to add ;-))

[Buenchico]

Mike:
The views of Alex Jack, solicitor to Bracknell Forest Council, might be relevant here:
http://www.bracknell-...s-of-snow-and-ice.pdf

See also the legal advice given to Portsmouth City Council and Hampshire County Council here:
http://www.portsmouth...t-the-fear.6644147.jp

Chris

[DTCwordfan]

if its sheltered housing, how come you have snow in there, mike.....?

[Barmaid]

Mike - I know of no cases. I did a quick search on my legal databases and can't find any.

As far as private property is concerned, the position is covered by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 where the occupier has a duty to keep his property safe for visitors. However the duty is no more than 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". It is akin to the standard imposed by ordinary negligence in that it is a duty to take reasonable steps.

However, if you cleared your path and made it WORSE - ie you used boiling water which then froze, you could be liable. On the other hand, if you knew that your path was extremely slippery and failed to clear it that could equally lead to liability.

As far as highway authorities are concerned, I did find one case where a chap was killed on an untreated road. The Court found that the duty of the Highways Authority only extended so far as to keeping the road in good repair and it did not extend to gritting it. I have found a couple of slip and trip where there is dicta to suggest that the Council have a duty to grit, however, the Claimants there have been unsuccessful given there has been a short period of time between the ice forming and an accident and also in terms of the Council's policy to allocate resources where most needed (ie to main roads). That is not to say there won't be others, I just haven't had time to look.

[mike11111]

Thank you for your reply. I will assume that provided someone does it sensibly, e.g. putting down salt or grit, then he is in no danger of being sued and that those who say otherwise are talking from the rear end. I know the law can be an ass, but judges do exercise a remarkable degree of common sense when it comes to assessing breach of duty.

[Barmaid]

precisely. The Judge will look at what is "reasonable" (and despite what a lot of people believe, Judges are eminently sensible folk). It is not an absolute duty, just one to do what is reasonable.

I do however despair at this "claim, claim claim" culture.