Posted By MLong What are people's views on gritting car parks? We have a country park which provides free parking. There has been a comment made saying we shouldn't grit car parks if we cant completely cover them in case someone falls over and injures themselves in an area that isn't gritted. My opinion, if we have the facility to grit, we should do. Would people complain more if we didn't do it at all?? If employees are present at the park, we owe them a duty and therefore should grit. But dont we owe a duty to people using our premises that aren't in our employment?? I've got myself confused!

Posted By Steve Tap ‘gritting’ into HSE website and open up ‘Web Communities’. Interesting views directly related to your question.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 MLong, Provided you give absolute priority to making safe the more frequently used walkways, paths, entrances and gateways, you WILL NOT be liable to an injury/compensation claim arising from ‘iced’ car park which was not gritted. Yes, you can grit the whole car park to show a good moral towards employee welfare. Kirsty

Posted By Ian Futcher Kirsty You seem to know more than our Insurers who have informed us that we would lose if we tried to defend a claim where an employee slipped up on snow (after a forecast snow-shower at night, before the end of the late-night shift) in the car park between cars and became injured. I think our insurers probably have more detailed experience and indicated that it was even to be expected that we should grit between parked cars (much to my dismay and annoyance), so I'm surprised at your confident assertion, but will (I'm afraid) be guided by them. Therefore, MLong I suggest you contact your insurers for their view; they may well dictate that for open access car parks, if the weather forecast is for slippery conditions, it is reasonable for you to grit the area. Ian

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 The most important case law would be; Fildes v International Computers(1984) Bloxham v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd (1985) Gitsham v C H Pearce & Sons plc(1991) (I can provide more if requested) They are all related to injury arising from icy surfaces at work places. Verdicts state that injured party should have realised the hazard present. The mere fact that an employee was required to walk on icy surfaces which was a normal incident of winter did not in itself indicate a defective means of access. Jonathan - Latimer v AEC case was not concerned with icy condition, instead it was for oily ground. (Even there - Employer was not held liable) Ian – It would be interested to know what your insurers have to say about liability. Can you please ask them to mention one case law to support their arguments? Also a point to note – Insurance brokers are not lawyers. Jervis – you are right to say that not all our roads/streets are gritted. Does this mean that I can sue the LA for my car accident.

Posted By jervis Why not worth a try !

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Kirsty, we agree then. I do not think that causation matters when it is the principle of whether or not to treat the problem that we are discussing. Your cases are perhaps more relevant though. Providing the employer is doing something reasonable, they should be okay. Owning a gritter and grit, but doing nothing to alleviate the situation is the "unreasonable" action we are trying to avoid, I think.

Posted By David Bannister A similar question arose some time ago when last it snowed. I expressed an opinion then that as snow was a natural phenomenon the duty of care was with the individual. I did not see that an employer could be held liable for an overnight snow fall leaving a car park or yard slippery. Several subsequent posts disagrred with my view. Kirsty's quoted cases would appear to support my view. Insurers will seek to push their clients in to a zero risk area but this is for claims avoidance rather than legal compliance. Whilst insurers certainly have vast experience of claims, the advice they give is given by individuals, who, like the posters here, are not always correct. If, as a safety professional anyone disagrees with them, challenge them to justify their stance. They are not infallable.

Posted By Adam Worth The worst thing about all this is - If i slip in the car park - put in a claim for a small amount, it costs more to defend than just pay.. In other words we loose either way!

Posted By SteveD-M Just to add 2 pence to Kristy's comments yes the case law is well established for such cases, however as stated in a previous post the cost of defending such a claim can be significantly higher. This is where the insurers are coming from. Unless you need to make a stand.(excuse the pun) Had a similar case a few years ago initial claim was for ~£3.5k. We won but cost of defending was a little over £50k. Not typical I might add but fair example.

Posted By Amandac Kirsty Would you like to expand on your comments 'it says a lot about the company?' I have worked for companies in the past that defended all claims, as that was their ethos. However their standard of H&S was excellent and the staff moral very good.

Posted By Jack You're right in purely economic terms but the downside is it encourages a claims culture. (Mind you the upside is the Lawyers don't get their hands on it).

Posted By Phil Rose Hi - sorry I am rather late into the discussion and have read the various comments with interset. The one thing that I would say to Ian (and for that matter Mlong), is that an insurance company would not be my first choice to go to for health and safety advice - unless you want advice on how to be totally risk averse! The answer to the question in SHP seems sensible but don't go around spouting section 7 to employees about wiping their feet - just ask them to wipe thier feet!