Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Inchoa  
#1 Posted : 11 December 2009 06:01:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Inchoa

I found out yesterday from one of the managers that there had been a successful claim last year after someone slipped on snow/ice in one of or community centre car parks (this is the first I have heard of it!). Looking at our records this is the first accident involving slipping on ice/snow in 6 years. However, as usual now the weather has turned cold I have been asked to provide a procedure for gritting. Would anyone be willing to share their procedure with me please.
Cooper80023  
#2 Posted : 11 December 2009 07:44:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Cooper80023

Inchoa, I am afraid this is all very real, my brother-in-law run a small cafe and a customer slipped on his steps and broke his leg, got £15,000, however more alarmingly the insurance company had "put aside" up to £32,000, so if the person had pushed it his award would have been higher. Cases like this i am sure may bring out the genuine but also the not so genuine claim. As for procedure i don't have his, although he now has a contract with a local company (farmers also offer this service where we are , Aberdeen) to ensure that his car park is sanded when applicable and that there is omeone specifically tasked with ensuring this has been done and recorded, as the first questions the insurance company asked was, do you have a contract for sanding and can you show me the record. Hope this helps.
Safety Smurf  
#3 Posted : 11 December 2009 15:41:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Inchoa, PM me your email address and I'll send you a copy of mine
ScotsAM  
#4 Posted : 11 December 2009 16:51:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ScotsAM

I remember seeing this topic brought up last year. I was sure that in carparks it's generally thought that people should be aware of the hazard themselves and should know to take care (possibly this derives from legal precendence?) This is with exception of on pedestrian walkways to and from carparks. I'm sure somebody could clarify this.
Safety Smurf  
#5 Posted : 11 December 2009 21:01:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

As I understand it the issue lies with who is responsible for the car park. If you go to a retail park with a joint car park to shop in La-di-da Ltd, slip in the car park and try to sue La-di-da Ltd it will propably fail on point one on the three point test (duty of care owed). If you go to the next town where La-di-da Ltd have a seperate business unit who's car park is obviously theirs alone you will succeed (depending on wether La-di-da Ltd owns the site or leases it, in which case it will be dependent on the details of the lease. If not specified the duty of care will fall on the occupier). The don't grit because you'll accept liability arguement was ill informed and has been disproven. Expecting people to be aware of the issue is a non-starter.
Safety Smurf  
#6 Posted : 14 December 2009 10:58:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Inchoa, You have mail
Inchoa  
#7 Posted : 15 December 2009 20:34:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Inchoa

Thanks to safetysmurf and other respondents, much appreciated.
Clukes  
#8 Posted : 16 December 2009 09:42:01(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Clukes

Inchoa wrote:
Thanks to safetysmurf and other respondents, much appreciated.
Hi, any chance of sending me a copy please?
Safety Smurf  
#9 Posted : 16 December 2009 10:25:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Clukes, Check your inbox
Safety Smurf  
#10 Posted : 16 December 2009 12:17:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Clukes, You've got mail
Clairel  
#11 Posted : 16 December 2009 15:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

This isn't a criticism of the person who posted the thread or anyone else who has posted. Just thought I'd say how sad this sort of thing makes me. I'm in the personal responsibility camp. It's cold, it could be icy so you watch your step and if you fall well it's a shame but that's life. Live, learn, take more care next time. I'm not going to sue a pub owner if I get sunburnt sitting in his beer garden, I'm not going to sue the council if I aquaplane in my car when there are puddles on the road after it's been raining and I'm not going to sue a shop if I slip on ice. A mate was telling me about a lady who skidded her car on ice last year on a country road nesr here. Crashed the car. Sued the council for not gritting the road. We both thought that was wrong. She should have driven according to the conditions. Am I the only one on the forum who thinks like this?? I take H&S seriously (well it's my job isn't it) but when it comes to the natural elements out there I think we all need to take responsibility for ourseleves. Is this becuase I was raised in the countryside and spend a lot of time in remote countryside? Is this is a townsperson mentality or is that an unfair assumption? I'm sure I'll get a barrage of abuse for giving my opinion on this (no change there) but there you go. Makes me sad that's all.
Metheringham17703  
#12 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:30:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Metheringham17703

Claire, I agree.
Murray18822  
#13 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:43:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Murray18822

Totally agree that people should take more responsibility for their surroundings. I too was brought up to respect what was going on around me an be responsible for my own actions. Example: as a child I had a bad habt of walking backwards and listening to the adults. On more than one occasion I bumped in to a lamp post and injured myself. Sympathy? Never. Clip on the lug (ear) and told to watch where i was going!!!!
grim72  
#14 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:44:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

Personally I would agree but an employer would always want to cover all the bases to prevent the less honest and easy-going members of the planet from jumping on the litigation bandwagon. I've said it before on this forum how I can't remember the last time I saw a kid up a tree - I spent half my childhood climbing them and this comes down to the fact that people are more cautious and aware of potential dangers. Oh, I grew up in th sticks too, maybe it is an urban thing?
Clukes  
#15 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Clukes

Claire, whilst you are right in so far as you can not eliminate all risks, and personal responsibility if a significant factor, depending on the circumstances, type of organisation etc, doing nothing may not wash in court. Don’t get me wrong I am all for the most practical solution but sometimes that is to do what is considered reasonable in the circumstances. So if you are a Housing Association with a scheme for the elderly with a communal building, would it not be reasonable to grit the main walkway which will also help protect your own staff?
Murray18822  
#16 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:50:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Murray18822

Absolutely right clukes. Where there is a responsibility to provide a safe place then taking into consideration the vulnerability of individuals identified as being at risk of injury is the correct action.
Clukes  
#17 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:51:56(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Clukes

Just common sense, which is what H&S should be about!
Clairel  
#18 Posted : 16 December 2009 16:59:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Well I'm suprised and reassured to get some support in my views. Thanks. Restores the faith so to speak. Clukes. I know many cases wouldn't stand up in court. That's not my point. My point is that they shouldn't even get to court. But I'm being idealistic in my view not realistic. If that makes sense. If I ran a residential unit for the elderly I probably would grit etc too. However, I sometimes wonder how much such things give a false sense of security? I'm not scientist but salt and grit only work at certain temperatures I believe (which is why they don't use it in places like the Alps). When someone sees somewhere is gritted they assume that that means it won't be slippy and therefore take less care. If it's too cold or it wasn't gritted properly they then may slip and fall because they thought they were safer than they were. A sort of false sense of security. So if roads and pavements weren't gritted people would take more care and use more appropriate equipment (eg, wearing appropriate shoes and boots or winter tyres or chains). Does that sort of make sense?
Clukes  
#19 Posted : 16 December 2009 17:13:23(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Clukes

I see you are drifting into a different world where things are ideal!! It would be nice. However, back to the real world, i agree with your comments and that is why as part of the procedure we inform tenants at this time of year (via a bulletin) that whilst we will endeavour to grit dedicated walkways, care should be taken as in extreme conditions it may refreeze, along with a reminder to wear sensible shoes, not to go out unless necessary etc. So yes you make sense and we have covered those areas you mention, which in my mind leaves it to them with the responsibility
Inchoa  
#20 Posted : 17 December 2009 03:32:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Inchoa

Clairel, I totally agree and I am firmly in the common sense camp, if I leave home when it is snowing and icy I take sensible precautions to reduce the chance of having an accident. However, in the case against our organisation the IP parked their car in the community centre car park following several days of snow and penetrating frost. The car park had not been gritted, the IP got out of the car and walked across the car park on wearing a pair of high heeled shoes, but slipped before reaching the building The organisation did all it could to defend the claim, however, our insurance company did pay out mainly because we did not have a procedure for gritting.
Derek1946  
#21 Posted : 17 December 2009 09:44:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Derek1946

Safety Smurf, Would you be kind enough to let me have a copy of your procedure also. Regards, Derek.
Safety Smurf  
#22 Posted : 17 December 2009 09:47:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

And I suspect, Here in lies the crux of the issue. Inchoa, Am I correct in understanding that your insurers settled out of court? We end up having to put these procedures in place not be cause we neccesserily feel we should, but if we don't and someone tries to sue, we fall down at the point of satisfying standard disclosures. At which point it comes down to costly court time and the insurers would just rather settle for as little as possible. This is understandable but has the side effect of creating precidence, not legal precidence but reaction precidence and so we end up doing things because we don't want to end up paying out like others have had to. The uneducated then stick a label on it and call it 'Elf'n Safety' whilst we left argueing our point to deaf ears that its actually 'litigation firewalling' Somebody help me down please I'm starting to feel giddy! ;-)
Safety Smurf  
#23 Posted : 17 December 2009 09:48:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Derek, PM me your email address and return it as an attachment.
RayRapp  
#24 Posted : 17 December 2009 10:04:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Gritting...this subject must come up every winter. Last year it was to grit or not to grit, I am firmly in the grit camp. It would be more interesting to learn how many unsuccessful claims than successful, although most are likely to be setteled out of court. Shame, as I doubt that many would succeed in court. Today whilst travelling on the underground (overground section) I noticed the platform had not been gritted. Now this represents a REAL risk to the public from falling in front of a train as opposed to a fanciful risk IMO.
Safety Smurf  
#25 Posted : 17 December 2009 10:27:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hmmm? Wonder whether you could sue your footwear manufacturer for not stating; "Not suitable for use in inclement weather"! On the side of the box in big bold contrasting letters! ;-)
Safety Smurf  
#26 Posted : 17 December 2009 11:57:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Derek, You've got mail
bod212  
#27 Posted : 17 December 2009 12:14:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bod212

On a similar vein can anyone give me some advice on the following scenario. My mother-in-law slipped and fell heavily on ice on an area (road/ pathway) leading to/ from her house. When we asked the LA why this had not been gritted we were told that this is private land and not within the LA`s scope for gritting. On enquiring further about this the council representative informed us that the road/ pathway in question is of the `block` paving type and not conventional `tarmac` and that the local factor may or may not be responsible for it, but that the LA most certainly was not. I should add that although this is a parking area it also is a bona fide street (with full address and postal code) albeit a cul-de-sac. The street is covered with `tarmac` along part if its length and the council have intimated that they will grit this bit when `they get round to it`. I know this strictly isn`t work related but will inform me better other areas of my (working) life where this may be relevant. Sorry about all the brackets, by the way.
Safety Smurf  
#28 Posted : 17 December 2009 13:08:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Gerry, This is actually of a more similar vein than might first appear! I would start by looking at the conditions of the leasehold/freehold. I have previously owned a Freehold in cul-de-sac where the LA were responsible for the road itself but the all of property owners were jointly responsible for the pavements and common off road parking area.
Canopener  
#29 Posted : 17 December 2009 19:37:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Gerry - I am wondering what sort of advice you are after? Could it be, can my MIL make a claim against someone? While the highways authority has some responsibility for the gritting of the highways etc, if you expect any LA to grit every road, street, path, car park etc then I fear that you are going to be sadly disappointed. Similarly if you think that the courts would expect the same, again, I don't think so. The highways agencies have a limited responsibility, limited funds, will do what is reasonable, and they do this by prioritising their gritting to where it is most needed and would have the most effect.
bod212  
#30 Posted : 18 December 2009 08:37:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bod212

Phil - absolutely no thought of making a claim. I just wanted opinion on who, if anyone is resposible for the gritting. We do not want anyone else who lives in this street to be hurted when the weather is cold and icy. I appreciate your advice and I am inclined to agree that this location will remain low on priority of the LA. I have lived at my current address (also a cul-de-sac) for nearly five years and the street has never been gritted, bearing in mind we get a lot of icy days around Glasgow, so I don`t expect the LA to suddenly change their priorities.
Dave C  
#31 Posted : 18 December 2009 09:42:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave C

Just been round to the our maintenance team, had a quick chat and they already had the bags of grit/salt in van and started gritting yards/pathways/carparks before main workforce arrive. Did we need a written procedure for this? No of course not - just good communication, a common sense approach and a pair of eyes to see what we could do to try and reduce the risk of our employees, visitors slipping due to the snow/ice on the ground. I was much more worried about coming into work this morning and observing the poor behaviour of many drivers in what were very hazardous conditions. To sum up - in weather like this I feel much safer when at work than driving my car to get to work!!
Safety Smurf  
#32 Posted : 18 December 2009 09:45:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hmmm! Too many xmas parties last night me suspects may have had something to do with that!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.