In the spirit of discuss or compare and contrast there are many problems involved in this case as in many most actions in negligence. It would be great if we had an effective 'no-fault' compensation system, then there would be payments made for injuries caused at work without any need for proving either negligence or breach of statutory duty -both of which applied in Miss Kennedy's case because it was prior to s69 EERA which binned strict liability. Shameful! So the injured party could have lump sum and/or periodic payments rapidly without 5 years of negligence/BoSD hassle. There would be no need for the 'forensic lottery' of negligence with all the difficulties seen in discussions like this when it appears that in many cases that the judges are bending over backwards to find a way to compensate 'innocent' injured parties, sometimes using public policy to allow that or referring to the 'floodgates being opened' to prevent paying out. In the case laid out by Ron, with a no proof of fault system the injured party, at work, and injured would be compensated without recourse to law. See NZ's original system from the Robens era Plus my view is that it would have been better [for OHS standards/workers, not business, of course] if reasonably practicable could have been rejected in favour of the higher practicable standard in the ECJ case Regards Mike

Interesting scenario, I think it is down to choice. In the scenario you give it would not be unreasonable to think that main roads would be cleared /gritted and so ok to drive on. Side roads are possibly now with cuts backs etc unlikely to be gritted. So the employee could drive as far as they can safely, park up, put spike things on shoes and walk further to the person’s home. Alternatively, they could decide to risk driving on the untreated road, however instruction would be not to. They then would be working against procedure, but that is then their choice. They have a safe way of working (all be it slower), which the company would have to take into account. The original scenario the person is at the garden gate with no choice of route or method to get to the house. So there is a difference. Are / should these things be considered PPE or something that a reasonable person should have. In the posts that say what about all the other journeys the person makes. Well there would be a lot less of them and their destinations will likely have gritted clear paths, supermarket car parks, schools etc. It is only when you get to people’s private property it is unknown. But a lot of able bodied people will grit / clean their own paths. I personally don’t own one of these devices for my shoes and manage just fine, so I would probably consider them PPE if needed for work, therefore not my supply. IMHO Chris