Can somebody help, if a company grits the car park in bad weather is this deemed an acceptance of liability for any EL or even a PL claim ? Please advise Thank you

Aaaagh, gritgate returns ;-) If you search on "gritting" in the site search box (i.e. the main search box not the forum search)you will find a lot of information and discussion about "to grit or not to grit" including a nice powerpoint at this link http://www.iosh.co.uk/sy...arch.aspx?terms=gritting This covers a lot of the ground that you are asking about. p48

Accepting or not accepting liability is not really relevant as where you control an undertaking you are automatically the responsible person so you cannot opt out The question as to should U or should U not grit is a separate area as deciding if U do grit or if U do not grit is really down to your risk assessment and those with the purse strings; noting that companies have been prosecuted for not gritting and for gritting abet not gritting as well as they could have been done I know of 2 organisations that are identical in ops etc. where one takes the chance and does not grit and the other gritted ------- Guess what; the grittier had a claim against then and paid out both the costs of the claim and the costs for pre case and post case gritting whereas the former has paid out nothing The MD of the none gritter says that if they get a claim they will fight it and even if they end up paying out they have saved a fortune in gritting over the years so they will not lose any £ in the end in any case! This is the real world I advise that U do your job e.r. advise etc. and leave the final decisions to the people who spend the money!

If it's your car park then it's part of your liability anyway, safe access and all that...

The case often referred to where the company gritted and was still found to be liable, presumably because they had not gritted very well, could easily have gone against the company had they not gritted. So, what may seem a perverse case may not be so perverse after all.

Hazards: People or Vehicles slipping on the ice/snow Control: Do nothing in case we get sued and then if we do get sued we pay out before it goes to court from the large amounts of dosh we have saved in the first case as eitherway we are quids in?!

That is of course until someone gets seriously injured in a fall, or falls into moving traffic, maybe the cost of a claim for a fatality or life changing injury may focus the mind a little.....

Completely agree Bob and my comment was aimed at the stupidity of the company you quoted not at you! ;-) Surely though solicitors and the like are liable for poor advice whether self-employed or not - just as I am!

H I know where the comments were aimed at; and have you tried to get a 'professional' disciplined etc.? If so U will know what I mean Example: An accountant can sign off your accounts and deliver them to the tax man yet its the MD of the company that is liable for any problems with the accounts even where they re not trained accountants! So I have always argued [I lost my argument] that a chartered accountant is not needed if they have no real accountability yet the IR will not have it any other way NB: If a problem is seen to be a deliberate act of forgery caused by the account then that is a different case The same applies to gritting as the accountant/procurer/shareholder etc gives advice but its the MD and the company overall that takes the fall if there is a claim

Remember that civil law is on the "balance of probabilities" so the reality is that whether or not grit has/had/will be applied isn't really the focus but what "on the balance of probabilities" would be reasonably expected re common law duty of care. If on the balance of probs. people could be expected to use the whole car park then it would be reasonable to expect an amount of grit to be applied across the whole car park.