Nope This has gone on for far too long - HSE published advice, government published advice, even basic schools kids can work out - gritting = less likelihood of an incident. What was the case-law from diploma about the slippery floor and saw dust? http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/faq.htm#icyconditions

Within the past 5 years or so a teacher slipped on an icy car park early one winter morning at a secondary school in my area. He or (more likely) shesued for compensation for injuries incurred, and alleged that the school had been negligent in not gritting the large school car park. It seems that the insurers for the local authority involved chose to defend against the claim in court with the aim of obtaining a judgement about what was and wasn't reasonably practicable regarding icy surfaces, etc at workplaces. The judge rejected the claim on the grounds that it wasn't reasonably practicable for the school's site staff to keep the car park treated. However, it was reasonably practicable for the school to keep the main footpaths and thoroughfares outside the buildings treated and the judge declared (based on evidence from witnesses who worked at the school) that the school clearly had an effective system for doing this. I've tried to find a report of the case on the internet but without success. Either there isn't one or my internet searching is limited by time and/or ability.

Lots of gripes about car parks this time of year... snow, ice, lighting etc. Some people tend to now go down the road to question if a car park is a place of work (just the parking element). I'm sure there would be uproar if employers decide to mitigate such risks by removing the car parking facility and encourage the use of public transport etc!

So would come under common law then I expect? Hmmmm and the times I used the car park to make a great long slide from the ice many moons ago! Designer trainers probably wouldn't be affective these days!

At the risk of me getting another lecture on the basics of the legal system, I don’t agree with the assertion that “you’re dammed if you do, damned if you don’t”. As there are a number of common law and statutory duties (including the ‘Workplace regs’, which are not entirely irrelevant) associated either directly or indirectly with maintaining workplaces and other areas free from snow and ice, I would think that you’re more likely to be damned if you don’t. The various duties generally tend to be ‘qualified’ by what is 'reasonable' in the circumstances. Some case law suggests that there is a difference between the approach required for a transient and a more long term situations. Latimer (Factories Act) was concerned with the practicability and reasonableness or I suppose unreasonableness of precautions, but I wonder if the following cases might be more relevant to the question asked. Munro v Aberdeen City Council). Murphy v Bradford metropolitan council Fildes v international computers Mark Fuller (by his mother & next friend Lorraine Mary Doreen Fuller) v Norfolk college of arts and technology Leslie Brian king v (1) rco support services ltd (2) Yorkshire traction co ltd (2000) Phillip marsh v (1) Stefan Kerwin (2) Dawn Kerwin (1995) As always the ‘warning’ is that sometimes the very specific facts of the case determine whether this is going to be applicable to another situation that might appear to be the same or similar. Any number of appeals have been won or lost on a very specific interpretation of the law or facts of the case. I think that the simple answer, if there is one, is that you should make reasonable efforts to grit and/or clear snow unless you can provide a reasoned justification not to. The cases above may help you with that justification. In general, I suggest that it would be unreasonable to try and ensure that all areas are kept clear of snow and ice at all times, but there should be an assessment that takes into account the individual circumstances of that site and the resources that you might reasonably be able to bring to bear at that site. You might reasonably concentrate your efforts on certain areas that you consider a priority and not on other areas, either at all or until resources become available, or you are able to move on from the higher priority areas once they have been dealt with. It follows that what you might do at one site, may be different to what you do at another etc etc.