Gritting - och, spread it everywhere you can. Record keeping - I'd keep a record of it; you may not have to report it but any such accident would be worth investigating. How else do you compile enough evidence to refute a claim in three years' time?

I agree you should at least grit main entrances and thoroughfares, dont forget any fire escape routes.

45 Any injury to a person who is not at work (eg a hotel or care home resident, pupil or student, or a customer in a shop) must be reported if it: (a) results from an accident arising out of or in connection with work; and (b) results in them being taken from the premises where the accident occurred to a hospital, by whatever means (for example by taxi, private car or ambulance). Source: A guide to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995; HSE (c) 2008 Hope this answers the question. And as for gritting, all stocks up here in Cumbria have been recalled by the Government so we can't even get any anyway. So email sent to all employees reminding them of the need for sensible shoes and minimizing manual handling in hazardous areas.

Looking at the originsal post, the decision as to whether to grit or not is an individual choice of each employer who would have to justify their decision not to if necessary in the event of enforcement action or a civil claim for damages. There is always plenty of discussion about this topic at this time of the year and I have yet to see any definitive guidance or a simple or straightforward answer. I am afriad it is the 'old chestnuts' of RA, reasonableness, SFARP etc. There is case law covering a number of different scenarions, a recent (Scottich) case that deals with duties under the 'workplace' regs is Munro vs Aberdeen City Council. As has already been mentioned RIDDOR also applies to people 'not at work' although the criteria for reporting is different for employees and people 'not at work'. There is also guidance for the reporting under RIDDOR of people 'not at work' but who are at a hospital, have a look at para 48 of the ACoP/Guidance http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l73.pdf

Spud, A recent claim that was made was a supermarket delivery driver making a claim against a member of the public (house hold). This was as you point out that the housholder cleared the path but the driver still fell due to making it more slippy.

I have not got a link and to be honest have not the time to look for it. The incident was published in all the health and safety journals and national news as well. I am sure that you can verify the facts if would like to do a search. This is not a bold statement just information sharing. As a CMIOSH member/professional i am not one to use hearsay and repeat without knowing the facts myself.

Barnaby, Thank you for clearing this up. (my mistake not slipping on snow). Mark

It looks like i have caused a little confusion over my post over the claim. Barnaby has posted a link to an article which he rightly points out that at the moment it is a claim and not settled. It also is not one connected to snow or ice, which may be my mistake. I would like to say that if someone slipped on snow or ice on a business premise then there is no reason why the individual could not pursue a litigation claim against the business. There are many websites of solicitors that are willing to take such cases on. It was not my intention to mislead any of you or supply false information. Mark

Reasonable foreseeability springs to mind, although i could be wrong. You had grit and used it. Due to the extreme's of the weather, which is the worst for x amount of years. You, like others, ran out of grit and therefore were unable to carry out your control measure. i suppose you could use sand, absorbant granules etc if you are desperate.

That is a helpful response - our footpaths are pretty clear but it is the access from the car park to the footpaths. Cant even get any (table)salt in quantities of any use!!! Minus 8 forecast tonight so after todays sun and melt should be great 'fun' tomorrow. Guys using some sand as we speak!!! thank you!

Under various pieces of legislation the duty holder, the employer, is responsible for maintaing a safe working environment. This is also the case with civl law/common law negligence and a duty of care. Moreover, the Occupier's Liability Act provides a means of redress for a personal injury against the proprietor of premises if they have not maintained it safely. All the evidence suggests that one should grit or be prepared to face the consequences.

This is one of those topics that could run forever, but Ray has sort of hit the nail on the head and is essentially the advice that I gave my employer regarding public car parks. We either grit or we don't! If we don't then we need to be prepared to defend that decision, politically, financially and if necessary in Court, and be prepared to take the 'hit' if necessary. Have a look at Munro vs Aberdeen City Council, be aware that this is a workplace regs case and I would suggest that a transient condition is a 'moveable feast' depending on a variety of circumstances. Move snow to come - yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Then you can't grit !?! ;-)

There was a good article on this topic on the BBC News website yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8443745.stm "It's the local authority's responsibility to clear snow and ice from the public highway. By sweeping snow from one part of the pavement to another, if done in a manner that caused injury to someone, there is a chance legal action could be taken against you under the part of the law known as "tort of nuisance". But, Paul Kitson, a partner with leading personal injury solicitors Russell Jones & Walker, explains that a claimant would have to show you had acted either maliciously or carelessly, and that such a case would often be tricky in practice. "It would be quite difficult to prove and quite difficult to proceed with a claim." 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. So if you know someone is likely to walk up your garden path, like the milkman, and you know it's slippery, you must take reasonable steps to clear it and grit it if necessary." Hope this helps, David

A recent workplace regs (Scottish) case about snow and ice failed as the judge determined that the snow and ice was a tempoaray and transient condition and that the employer had done all that was reasonable practical. I suggest that the 'transient condition' is something of a 'moveable feast' depending on the circumstances. It might be argued that the presence of snow and ice X days or weeks down the line might not be regarded as transient. Interesting reading all the same. http://www.scotcourts.go...pinions/2009csoh129.html

It wouldn't surprise me that the majority of shopkeepers would like to clear their pavement areas. The law has gone mad if it means shop keepers being sued by pedestrians. The litigation culture is crazy!

According to this article article: http://www.dailymail.co....=1708&referrer=yahoo IOSH is warning business NOT to grit public paths. Not another "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" article ?

Probably against my better judgement but here goes. There are a number of different duties, some statutory, some common law, some relate to the workplace, some don't etc etc etc. There are quite a few case law examples such as the link I provided above in which the claim failed because that particular judge in that particular case/circumstances decided that there wasn't an absolute duty, but a duty SOFARP and that the test had been met as the snow/ice was considered a ’transient’ condition. I personally think that the argument that people are more likely to be sued IF they grit is pretty 'fatuous'. Overall I would strongly suggest that it is generally better to grit than not, I doubt there is likely to be much argument about that (but will wait and see!) Similarly I don’t know of any cases where somebody has been sued for having a reasonable stab at clearing snow and ice, although there are cases for the converse i.e. not doing so. However, I think it is reasonably clear that the conditions we have been experiencing recently are pretty exceptional by normal standards and I think that is where PART of the problem lies. Reasonably practicable and being ‘reasonable’ are moveable feasts, and the 'standard' varies according to the prevailing conditions. Remember that there are two sides to the SOFARP ’balance’; risk is fair enough, but don't forget the other side of it, ’cost, time, trouble, effort, money, logistics etc’. The question is; is it RP in all cases to keep every road, path, pavement, car park, driveway etc etc etc clear of snow and ice. I think that the answer to that is rather obvious! As for the DM article, I couldn’t see any reference to IOSH but was interested in the comment by John McQuater, president of the National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers that “If you do nothing you cannot be liable”. I wonder if he would change his mind if my postman slipped on my drive, because I hadn’t made any attempt to clear it and then went to Mr McQuater to get help to pursue a claim against me? I can here the post-box rattling now with the letter of intent to make a claim.