Posted By tony fog
Today I was asked a very interesting question by one of my clients who owns a retails park, He asked is he obliged by law to grit th foot paths and walkways or is it just good practice. In reality I told him he had a duty of care to users of the site, but then thought, well why don't the council grit all public foots paths,....!!!. anyone answer this quoting any specific legislation rather than the general stuff.

What would happen if he just left it?, could he be sued?, under what law...!!!, any case study's available.

Many thanks

Posted By J Knight
Hi Tony,

The legal answer is s2 of the Health and Safety at Work act 'safe access to and egress from a place of work'. employers have no duty to clear paths leading to their premises which they don't own, but paths and roadways on their own premises should be safe to use.

Also agree that there is definitely a PR issue here, and keeping paths clear and safe is welcoming and, perhaps, professional,

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi David,

I think that's a bit of an urban myth. My previous employer certainly paid out at least once for somebody slipping on an icy car-park; though having said that failing to clear ice or snow properly would be just as much a breach of duty as not clearing it at all,

John

Posted By Brian Hagyard
Mclemmit.

Snow and Ice may not be mentioned specifically in legislation, but may want to check ACOP paragraph 96 which accompanies Regulation 12 (Condition of Floors and Traffic Routes) of Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which states (sorry to quote verbatim from documents especially on a Friday)
"Arrangements should be made to minimise risks from snow and ice. This may involve gritting, snow clearing and closure of some routes, particularly outside stairs, ladders and walkways on roofs".

For me that says grit in icy conditions or pay the consequences if someone slips.

Brian

Posted By Stuart Nagle
Is there a legal duty on local highways authorities to grit icy roads? (as opposed to private rights of way) The question is simple, the answer as so often is the case in law, is no.

It all turns on correct interpretation of the Highways Act 1980 - which remains unclear in some areas.

In March of 1995 Norfolk CC insurers paid out £300,000.00 in an out of court settlement (and estimated £100,000.00 costs) to a driver who suffered brain damage after his car skidded on ice on the A134 trunk road between Kings Lynn an Thetford and collided with an oncoming lorry.

The councils defence would have revolved around the fact that the Council, as the Highway Authority, has gritted the road, even though it did not have a statutory duty to do it.

The Council would have argued that it as the driver fault because he lost control of the vehicle when nobody else on the road at this time had.

So what is the law? Are highway Authorities under a statutory duty, in bad weather, to grit potentially dangerous local roads - or not?

The relevant statute is the Highways Act 1980 and it is true that it says nothing whatsoever about Highway Authorities having to grit icy local roads. All it says is (Section 41) is that the local Highway Authority 'is under a duty to maintain the highway' and (Section 58) that it is a defence for the Highway Authority to prove that it had taken reasonable care to ensure the highway was not dangerous.

But what does the vital word 'maintain' mean in Section 58?

Go back to the Appeal Court case of Haydon - V - Kent County Council, decided three years before the 1980 Act - but on the same wording in an earlier Act - to try an find the answer.

A woman living in Kent had slipped and injured herself on an icy, steep, narrow footpath, walking to work during a February cold snap shortly before KCC, alerted that very morning to the conditions at the locus in quo, had gritted the surface.

Could she sue for breach of the Councils duty to maintain the footpath?

Mr Justice O'Connor awarded her £4,250 damages, but the Appeal Court overruled him, and here we come to the legal difficulty. There were two different reason for the decision...

Lord Denning, the the Appeal Court presiding judge and master of the rolls ruled there was no liability because the statutory duty to maintain a road does not apply to a mere 'transient obstruction', caused for example by snow and ice, which had not damaged the surface of the highway.

Lord justices Goff and Shaw disagreed with Lord Denning and differed in their opionions... They both agreed the claim must fail - but only they ruled that Section 58 applied and the council had taken reasonable care 'in all the circumstances'.

Lord Justice Goff and Shaw ruled that there was no general exception for so called 'transient obstructions' and stated that 'the statutory obligation to maintain does include clearing snow and ice or providing temporary protection by gritting.

But which view prevails today... That of Lord Denning or of the two Lord Justices?

Unfortunately I cannot tell you as there does not appear to have a subsiquient recorded case in the high court or the appeal court to provide an authoritive and clear cut ruling.

It was hoped that the Norfolk County Council Case would provide the answer, but it appears we must wait a little longer

Of course prudent Highway Authorities continue to grit icy road whenever reasonably practicable - but no-one knows if legally they really have to.... Whilst this may appear rather odd it is to date a fact...

As for workplaces... are they accessed via public highways or private roads and footpaths that are the responsibility of the owner?

Thereby could hang another tale....

Posted By RP
http://www.publications....mt/jd000615/goodes-1.htm

Extract from above link.

Section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 requires a Highway Authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense "to maintain the highway." By Section 329(1) of the Act "… 'maintenance' includes repair, and 'maintain' and 'maintainable' are to be construed accordingly."

On 14 November 1991 at 7.10 in the morning, Mr. Goodes was driving his car on a highway maintainable by East Sussex County Council. The car skidded on ice on the road and crashed into the bridge. Mr. Goodes was gravely injured. He has claimed damages from the Highway Authority for breach of their duty to "maintain the highway". In view of what the Authority's officers knew of the forecast weather conditions at that time of the morning, they should have taken steps in sufficient time to put down salt or grit and thus to prevent the ice forming. Whether the gritting lorry which had been scheduled to cover the road could and should have arrived earlier in time to prevent ice forming has been contested at the trial and before the Court of Appeal.

The issue before your Lordships has, however, been whether the duty to "maintain" includes a duty to keep the road safe by preventing ice from forming. It has not been contended that there is a liability at common law in negligence.

As a matter of ordinary language "maintain" is wide enough to include the taking of preventive steps and to include steps to keep the road safe for ordinary use by motor cars. Gritting is a perfectly normal practice and no suggestion is made that extraordinary or novel steps should have been taken. If this Act stood alone, there would be much force in the conclusion of the majority in the Court of Appeal that there could be liability in some circumstances for a failure to maintain by keeping the road safe subject to the Local Authority establishing a defence under section 58(1) of the Act that the Authority:

Use the link for more