NONE GRITTED FOOTPATH

[Notleks]

Can I claim against the council after I slipped on none gritted footpath and broke my ankle?

[ChuckFickens]

No.

Snow = act of god

try suing god if you want.

[ChuckFickens]

Or just accept the fact that you fell and it's your own fault and stop trying to make money from it.

[dothawkes31]

Or, go back and look to see if you may have slipped on an uneven repair or dislodged drain.

[Notleks]

Thank you Chuck Fickens for your negative answer .I am 66 self employed,not insured
who are going to pay the bills? It was not God who neglected to do the councils Job!

[bednobs]

i don't think it is the councils job to grit all footpaths - they can't even grit all roads, especialy now the goverment have asked them to cut back on using grit by 20%. The council can only do so much. How do you expect the council to grit footpaths anyway? do you expect someone to walk down every single pavement in it's area with a bucket of grit??
Even them grit is not much good unles it is walked and walked and walked over - and on snow it's pretty useless anyway, someone needs to shovel the snow out of the way first!
Snow/ice = slippy, surely you have learned that over the last 60 years?
It is not the councils fault that you have no income protection in case of accidents; just because you can't pay your bills, dosen't mean they have to

[ChuckFickens]

You are more than welcome for the negative answer.

sorry if it's not what you "want" to hear!

[DrFilth]

if you are 66 you will remember in the old days people used to clear the pavment in front of their house and put down the cinders from the grate of the old fireplace.

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure why people post questions when they have already decided what the right answer is and don't welcome any other answers.

[fredpuli47]

Well,Notleks,contrary to the lurid accounts given in the press, unfortunately not everybody who falls can sue somebody ..You are imposing a greater duty of care on the Council than the law will bear in this instance.The risk is self-evident to pedestrians and was not itself a risk positively created by the Council but created by act of nature. Aliter [lawyer's word for 'in other circumstances', 'otherwise than in the example given'] if the Council has manifestly failed to repair uneven pavements or potholes and someone innocently suffers injury in consequence that person may have a case.

At least the NHS will treat you without further charge and you've, seemingly, not suffered loss of earnings.

[fredpuli47]

Correction: You're self-employed, not retired. It's to be hoped that you've suffered no significant loss of earnings. That is why we self-employed take insurance,if we can, against loss occasioned by a mishap which gives us no recourse to the courts.

[joko]

get yourself a pair of wellies ...they should fit over the cast too!

[socket2008]

As far as I know, no council is legally required to grit anything. Othwerwise, someone could make a claim (after falling) on the one road that was not gritted. No council in the world could grit everything and that is why they are not obliged to do so.

Assuming one fell ass over head, in an area that had been gritted, you would need proof that the fall happened in the aforementioned area and then prove that the grit/snow compound caused you to fall.

[Androcles]

This appeared in the Times Online - sorry I don't have the link handy.


"Mark Loveday is a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, 2-5 Warwick Court, London WC1R 5DJ. 020-7421 5300

Q: My garden path leads down to the pavement on the road outside my house. When it snows, the council takes ages to clear snow and ice from the road and the pavement. Some of my neighbours carefully sweep and grit their paths and the stretch of pavement outside their homes. I have never done this. What is the legal position with clearing snow and ice from the street and my path?

A: Your local authority is responsible for clearing snow and ice from the public highway and pavement. Under Section 41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980, the council must ensure that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice. If the local authority fails to act, you can apply to the magistrates' court under the same legislation for an order to unblock the highway within a reasonable period - although such orders are very rare indeed.

Private landowners are not obliged to clear snow or ice from the highway, even if the road or pavement passes over their land. Indeed, from a legal point of view it may be risky for private individuals to clear these areas. By sweeping snow from one part of the pavement you can create a danger in another area and if someone is injured, you will be liable for negligence or nuisance.

End of part 1 part 2 follows

[Androcles]

Part 2

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 the postman) is likely to walk up your garden path, and you also know that the garden path is slippery, you must take reasonable steps to clear the path of snow and grit it if necessary.

However, you should not simply brush the snow from your path 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.

Your neighbours are therefore quite right to clear their own paths, but are taking a legal risk in clearing the public pavement - no matter how public-spirited their actions may seem." Ends

[fredpuli47]

Mr Loveday (quoted by Androcles, supra) refers to s41A of the Highways Act 1980. The section is not to be read and interpreted quite as widely as he may seem to suggest.The section is one added to s41 which states ' a highway authority are [subject to two subsections of no relevance here] under a duty to maintain the highway' That's all. Section 41A states 'In particular a highway authority are under a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice' That's a specific part of their duty 'to maintain'; Note the words 'so far as reasonably practicable' The section does not require the authority to clear snow but only to ensure, subject to the proviso, safe passage. Now, it is possible, sometimes, to sue a public body for damages for loss occasioned by its breach of statutory duty.However, in the ordinary instance here, whatever the legal basis for such a claim may be , the claimant will fail because of the proviso of ' reasonably practicable''.You'd have to 'go a very long way' to get home on this specific example of a claim of failing to maintain.

[Notleks]

Thank you to all those who took the trouble to write a reply.
I guess the overall feeling is the same as those who drove past in there cars on a gritted road , while I laid for 1 1/2 hrs waiting for an ambulance "look the other way "
I guess I better put up and shut up for the next 6 weeks!

[buildersmate]

That's a pity - I was hoping it was a smaller version of a negligee.