Posted By Ross Stirton Definitely grit...notwithstanding the legal/moral perspective, the 'no win, no fee' brigade have a field day in such circumstances.... Regards, Ross

Posted By Alec Wood Definately grit. My previous employer relied on contracting the local authority, who were caught out by a cold snap, and failed to get to us before someone slipped and sustained a minor fracture of the shin. In court in a month's time, and fully expect to lose! Alec Wood Viewtek Display Services Ltd

Posted By Peter Lee Latimer V AEC Ltd 1953 ?

Posted By Jonathan Breeze I'd say grit. Rod, Did they actually go to court & get a judgement, or did the insurers bottle out & settle on the steps of the court? The reason I ask is because in the case of Latimer v AEC, a similar sort of thing happened & the court of appeal held the company was not liable. Of course the case could have been superceded, or I could be wrongly applying the findings (it was coolant not ice & part of the process) - I'm no lawyer.

Posted By Hilary Charlton Yes, grit definitely, us walkers of the world want to be able to continue to do so despite the appalling conditions.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Malcolm. Bill Elliot is correct in mentioning the Workplace Regulations, which also state (ACoP Note No 101) 'at workplaces at quarries and above ground at mines, regulation 12 only applies to floors and traffic routes inside buildings'. This would appear to emphasise that at all other workplaces (except quarries and mines) the regulations apply to all areas outside the buildings, as can generally be gleaned from other sections of this particular regulation, guidance etc. It is interesting to note though, that of all the hazards that are mentioned, snow and ice are not specifically detailed. I recall also from highways law, that Highways Authorities are not legally bound to salt/grit public highways. As I recall there was a case some years ago where a highway authority were sued for failing to salt/grit and were found guilty, however this was overtuned on appeal employing The Highways Act and previous case law. The other problems with salting/gritting is making employees aware of 'salted/gritted' routes that are safer (supposedly) that areas that have not been salted/gritted. The regulations (as quoted above) make much of identifying hazards with suitable cones and barriers etc, and so it could be implied that 'safe' areas, as opposed to hazardous areas, should likewise be signed for employees so they are aware of the 'unsafe' routes!!! Could it therefore be construed that not to have marked 'safe' routes for employees that have been salted and gritted would not be considered as having gone so far as was reasonably practicable....in the event of an slip.trip and fall accident in relation to snow and ice!! Stuart

Posted By Paul Adams There was case law we looked at at College (an indeterminate amount of time ago). It concerned Swan Hunter Shipyard at Wallsend. The access to the yard is very steep. An employee slipped on ice on his way to work, suffered injury and claimed on the basis that the responsibility lay with the employer. As I recall, he lost because it was reasonably foreseeable that the roadway would be slippy and require extra care on the part of the individual when covered in snow and ice. I am sure others can provide more detail. On the other hand, we do grit and clear paths.

Posted By Laurie Although we always used to grit, at the beginning of winter I would always remind staff, through various internal channels, that we do live in Northern Europe and if it's 7.30 a.m. on a January morning and the car park looks a bit bit white then it is probably slippery! Peolpe must surely take at least some responsibility for their own actions Laurie

Posted By Stuart Nagle Hi, Merv. HSAWA also states that employees must have due regard to their own safety in the workplace, and I would have thought that a foreseeable risk for an employee would be slipping and falling on snow and ice..... Even for those not normally akin to accident prevention methodology... Regards... Stuart

Posted By David Mains In addition to the duty of care to those on your property and the absolute duty to provide safe access and egress, there is the liability and claims issue that John mentions. This is why it is important not only to have a system of salting/gritting but also a robust paper trail to prove that you have all that was reasonably practicable and foreseeable. Of course, you then need to prove to your lawyers that it is worth defending a case in order to deter the ambulance chasers.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Pat, Thanks for that clarification on when the Latimer defence does and doesn't apply, very helpful. So - get gritting everyone!