Posted By Ian Futcher It could be said that if you own the car park, you are responsible for the safe access and egress. I appreciate the difficulty of salting/gritting when rain is due; however if you were aware of the weather forecast, your insurers that deal with any claim will probably think along the lines: the judge will think that you were also aware that it would stop raining and freeze, so you probably could have arranged for gritting at a suitable time between rain and freeze; therefore the insurers will think there is no point to defend. I am not saying whether the above mental process is right or wrong - it's just the sort of process our insurers have intimated to me in a similar case. So, "Legal" Duty of Care is probably not the nub of your issue. Sadly, I reckon you need to think: "Will the injured person sue?" "Will the insurance company roll over and pay out?" If your company does not pay people when they are off sick normally, it might be wise to keep paying this person so that there is no loss of earnings, and at least minimal general loss overall, and it might just make a claim less likely. ...well, that's what I think, anyway. Ian

Posted By Graham Bullough This is a topical thread especially during the current big freeze affecting the UK. Several years ago an employee at one of my employer's large secondary schools was injured through slipping on ice in the car park as she arrived for work. She claimed compensation and ultimately the case was heard in court. The judge rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to grit the car park. This may have reflected its considerable size and the fact that gritting of its full area by scarce numbers of site staff would be impeded by vehicles parked on it except overnight and very early in the morning (still dark) before staff started arriving from 0700 onwards. The judge noted from witnesses that the school did have a system for regularly gritting its main external walkways in response to freezing conditions, and deemed that this was reasonable unlike trying to grit the car park. The same principle evidently goes for public roads and pavements. Local authorities follow a priority system using finite resources (i.e. time, rock salt, equipment and people to do the gritting) which means that main roads, pavements in shopping areas, etc will get gritted while others, including roads and pavements of residential areas, do not. I'm no expert in these matters, but it would seem that the effectiveness of rock salt gritting is at the whim of factors like temperature (not effective anyway below something like minus 5 or 6 degrees Celsius?) and ensuing conditions such as new snow or a temporary thaw followed by rapid freezing to leave treacherously smooth icy surfaces.

Posted By SteveD-M Kirsty You should be a little more careful with such bullish statements. Beware of the detail - as NeBOSH says read the question...(I made a decision not to grit) As with an earlier thread it's all in the argument...

Posted By Ian Futcher Kirsty The trouble with quoting case law, while all well and good, is that it has come down from courts. That precedent is fine if the case gets to court. Often a claim does not get to court because the insurers (for whatever reason, usually balance of cost vs time) decide not to contest the claim. Therefore, quoting case law does not stop someone making a claim, and does not prevent the insurers paying out. You can argue the issue with the insurers, and quote case law all you want, but in the final analysis they will make the call because it is their money that they have to pay out to the claimant to prevent potentially larger payments to the court should they lose. As has been said in other threads recently, the Law as it comes down in Court is a matter of interpretation, and even when case law and precedent exist, it doesn't prevent a decision going against you, and resultant court costs/fees. Ian

Posted By Pete Longworth Kirsty As has been said, case law is only as valid as the latest decision. Different circumstances could lead to a court deciding that existing case law does not apply and new case law is established. It has also been said that the devil is in the detail, some of which you seem to have missed. For instance Lee stated that he took a conscious decision not to grit the car park because rain had been forecast. Does that mean that normally he would grit the car park or not. A court would certainly consider that point. If the answer was yes the the court may decide that gritting the car park was custom and practice, something that was reasonably practicable. The cases that you cite presumably, were decided on the basis that the defendants did not ever grit areas, but if the had had a history of gritting and on the occasion in question had not then I suggest there would have been a different outcome. We don't know the answer to these questions because Lee hasn't said but has said enough to indicate areas where, should a claim go to court, the court would be looking for answers. On the question about where does the duty of care end, even if it could be argued that crossing the car park was not part of the employees work the employer still has a duty of care under the Occupier's Liability Acts as well as his/her duty to maintain safe access and egress.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 By referring to English case law regarding injuries due to icy conditions would certainly help towards understanding my statement.

Posted By Steve Cartwright This is a perfect example of limited knowledge. I can't see why some get upset when someone mentions case law and then start babbling on about insurance companies. The original poster asked if the employer was negligent? If the case went to court the courts would decide if the employer was negligent and the use of case law could be used as a reference tool. I'm with Kirsty. Lee can now look at the relavent case law and if he can interperate what it means he can then decide for himself. Steve

Posted By SteveD-M MacKenzie v The Cooperatve Group 2007. Farrant v Essex County Council Although Scottish law is slightly different as there is a duty to grit roads etc. The definition of maintain is in Latimer v AEC. The point is on the very brief information we have is that the a claim can be made. The strength of the investigation on both sides will present facts that will either support or not that claim. If the company makes the decision to take it to court to make a point it would be like using a cruise missile to swat a fly (in relation to cost). It is much easier to settle at the much lower figure.