Posted By Chris G My local 24hr mega supermarket now has one of the most illogical layouts known to mankind. Road in at one end, road out at other with 4 isles (all one way) linking the in & out (OK so far). A few months ago one of the one way isles was made 2 way. We now have traffic going every which way and ignoring all signs. Only a mater of time before an accident occurs - as I've explained to the store manager. The car park has one of the usual no responsibility notices. In the event of an accident would the store be at fault as a duty of care to non employees invited onto premises? ie they have made a non sense layout and do nothing to enforce the correct traffic flows. The need for one way must have been a risk based decision? Any comments or suggestions on how I might influence the supermarket to see that they have made changes for the worse & that they need to manage their premises? Or is it purely civil matter between injured party and driver once the inevitable accident happens?

Posted By Vernon Kay Our supermarket is similar, with very unclear signage and this leads to a free-for-all at busy times. People dive in and out of spaces when they become available and the big "DISCLAIMER" notices remove any blame or liability from the supermarket giants. I would also appreciate some responses to Chris' lovely question.

Posted By Pete48 So the local supermarket car park is just like the highway now then,("We now have traffic going every which way and ignoring all signs"). Maybe it will reduce confusion and reduce accident potential. Take care out there, there is neither a safe car park nor a safe highway without safe drivers.

Posted By steven bentham This risk clearly comes under HASAWA - take some photies and grass them up.

Posted By Alexander Falconer Got a better idea! Why not sack the Tesco road/store planning bods? A recent visit to the Tesco store at Perth (next to the St Johnstone FC ground at McDarmiad Park) for lunch during a business trip. Layout was a nightmare, only one road in, and out (via traffic lights) and no one letting people out, result utter ands complete chaos and tailbacks - oh and the filling station exit road leads onto the same road. 30mins to travel 150 yards????? London M25, I can accept, but not Perth

Posted By David Bannister Alexander - why bash only Tesco? They're all at it. Vernon - they're businesses run for their shareholders. The big ones must be doing much that is right for their customers - else they wouldn't be big. However, being big doesn't always make them right, just as being big doesn't necessarily make them bad - though sometimes they are right bad!

Posted By J Knight Eeyup, The way i see it is that the car park of a supermarket is a workplace, and HSE has this to say about workplace transport 'By law, every workplace must be organised so that pedestrians and vehicles can circulate safely. Workplace traffic routes must also be suitable for the people and vehicles using them, and pedestrian movement counts as ‘traffic’. Where vehicles and pedestrians share a traffic route, they must be safely separated.' I know that when I complained to HSE about the traffic chaos at Sheffield Midland Station during the first phase of the current refurbishment, they visited and gave advice, which was followed, John

Posted By Red Ones I thought that using the HASAWA on supermarket car parks could be tricky? Shoppers are not employees and therefore not directly covered in the same way. The Occupiers Liability Act, however, does cover all parties visiting the site, and this includes invited and non-invited visitors (so if someone visits the supermarket with the intention of shoplifting they are still afforded a level of protection by the shop!) A shopper would be deemed an invited visitor to the site and is, therefore, entitled to a level of protection from harm; the supermarket has duty of care to the customer whilst he customer is on site; the car park has the potential to cause a loss be it financial in damage to a vehicle, or physical to a pedestrian. Bearing this in mind I would say that the disclaimer in the car park is unlikely to hold should a car be damaged in an accident, if the accident can be seen to be caused in part by the layout or management of the car park. The disclaimer would only hold if the loss is caused solely by another visitor to the site, or by an employee whilst not carrying out their duties. The difficulty is in proving the liability in the management of the car park. Should you have a bump in the car park you would need to claim that the management of the car park is lacking and this is often easily defended by the store.

Posted By Stupendous Man The store does have a responsibility for ensuring that the layout of the car park is safe and appropriately signed. Perhaps a positive story is needed here to balance the argument. Our local Tesco responded to complaints about the car park layout, particularly egress and changed the entire layout.

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, Red Ones, supermarket car parks are workplaces; for example there are people whose job it is to push trolleys about, usually in long unwieldy trains, and HASAWA s2 certainly appplies to them, and yes, there are s3 duties, John