Can you be sued for clearing snow from you land if someone subsequently slips?

Did a forum search on this and it was mentioned briefly in the supermarket icerink one where TJ provided two links one said

nobody who volunteers to support their community by clearing pavements during icy conditions should feel they are in danger of being sued under health and safety legislation.

the other said

It’s unlikely you’ll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries on the path if you have cleared it carefully

So unlikely but still a possibility by the sounds of it. So any legal bods wanna tell us the likelihood? I’m presuming aslong as you don’t completely screw up the job (like using boiling water to clear the snow or piling it all up on the road) the chances of being sued are astronomical but HSE et al still can’t categorically rule it out, is that about right?

There was also some expert on Radio 4 last week saying its urban myth and people can not be sued for not clearing snow.

donk- your summing up is how I understand it.

I did the pavement outside my building today this morning

Complete urban myth.

The only way you could be sued would be if you deliberately created a hazard (e.g. poured water on the path to create a nice slide).

You are more likely to be sued for NOT clearing the path as you have observed a hazard on your land but done nothing to protect visitors from it.

I do it from my driveway to the road.

Either side of my driveway I have about a metre of wet, hard packed snow that will stop anybody sliding in an accidentm and keep those NOrthern Rock twunts from parking right at the edge of my driveway.

I’ve had a few people make comments about me clearing the path and road, one said I was making it slippier, I advised her not to walk on it then.

There’s no law stopping you from clearing snow and ice on the pavement outside your home or from public spaces. It’s unlikely you’ll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries on the path if you have cleared it carefully. Follow the snow code when clearing snow and ice safely.

Directgov

you could not create a hazard on your path so why worry
HTH

you could not create a hazard on your path so why worry

Just wanted to back up a brew room argument i had the other day, I said it’s bobbins but wanted some proof to back me up (and reasurance that I wasn’t talking complete arse)

As I understand it you can be sued for not clearing snow & ice from your land if you know someone may be injured and they subsequently are.

From here
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article3205122.ece
“On your own land, it is a different matter. You owe visitors a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to take reasonable care to ensure that they are reasonably safe. This means that if you know someone (such as the postman) is likely to walk up your garden path, and you also know that the garden path is slippery, you must take reasonable steps to clear the path of snow and grit it if necessary.”

Iirc you are legally required to clear snow from outside your house in the States. Imagine that here…

We got a ‘magazine’ through from the council, in the part about winter gritting arrangements etc it stated you cannot be sued for clearing footpaths outside your house and they encourage residents to do so. It didn’t mention the road though, I cleared the road outside our house last year before the snow was compacted into ice (purely to prevent people sliding into our vehicles as happened earlier in the week) and did wonder afterwards whether it would ice over anyway but appear grippy to drivers.

Last week i took ten minutes to clear my little path and pavement outside my house as a little experiment. I nipped to the shop half an hour later and two more houses had done the same. 😀 But then it snowed again. 🙁

Surely the answer is yes you can be sued – but it is extremely unlikely that you would lose the case?

Someone being sued has nothing to do with “health and safety legislation”. Health and Safety Legislation – is enforced by the HSE/Local Authority and doesn’t involve suing people – it involves various measures, which in extreme situations could result in a prosecution, but its difficult to imagine a circumstance where HSE would try to raise a prosecution unless they had been incredibly negligent or previously issued with warnings by HSE about some part of their snow clearing / deicing operations.

Had this put to me today:

Snow clearing supplement – if its needed the Gov charge everyone an extra £20.00 in council tax.

Sounded to me like a good idea just waiting to be implemented badly.

The only dangerous bit of pavement in our street this weekend was the bit outside someone’s that they’d cleared of snow but hadn’t gritted.

Sue em 🙂

I’m sure a search on here would clear as it came up then. The answer is no you can’t.

Phil_H I see your point but really? You’d think there would be tons of claims of this nature! In any event:

Postie has duty to walk carefully & Employer may have a duty to equip him to do work properly. Is there really a claim against Mrs Miggins who didn’t clear the ice from her drive?

Yeah, I know……

Sorry not meaning to criticise – I realise it’s a cut’n’paste, just wondered if it was also your opinion.

I don’t care what the Nanny’s say, about most things – I always clear the snow from my drive and pavement.

definitive answers

on here??!
😆

Definative answer here.. 💡

From here
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article3205122.ece
“On your own land, it is a different matter. You owe visitors a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to take reasonable care to ensure that they are reasonably safe. This means that if you know someone (such as the postman) is likely to walk up your garden path, and you also know that the garden path is slippery, you must take reasonable steps to clear the path of snow and grit it if necessary.”

The above is wrong in referring to the 1984 Act. The 1984 Act sets out your duty of care to trespasser, ie burgulars. Yes, you do have a duty of care to burgulars and trespassers entering your land.

The 1957 Act appiles to legitamate visitors, such as postie delivering. Full text below.

1.
Preliminary— (1) The rules enacted by the two next following sections shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them.
(2) The rules so enacted shall regulate the nature of the duty imposed by law in consequence of a person’s occupation or control of premises and of any invitation or permission he gives (or is to be treated as giving) to another to enter or use the premises, but they shall not alter the rules of the common law as to the persons on whom a duty is so imposed or to whom it is owed; and accordingly for the purpose of the rules so enacted the persons who are to be treated as an occupier and as his visitors are the same (subject to subsection (4) of this section) as the persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier and as his invitees or licensees.
(3) The rules so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply, in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law to an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensees would apply, to regulate—
(a)the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft; and
(b)the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any premises or structure in respect of damage to property, including the property of persons who are not themselves his visitors.
(4) A person entering any premises in exercise of rights conferred by virtue of an access agreement or order under the National Parks and Access to the M1 Countryside Act 1949, is not, for the purposes of this Act, a visitor of the occupier of those premises.
Annotations:
Marginal Citations
M1 1949 c. 97.

Importand bit now…..Section 2.
2.
Extent of occupier’s ordinary duty— (1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.
(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
(3) The circumstances relevant for the present purpose include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example) in proper cases—
(a)an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; and
(b)an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.
(4) In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)—
(a)where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; and
(b)where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.
(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another).
(6) For the purposes of this section, persons who enter premises for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred by law are to be treated as permitted by the occupier to be there for that purpose, whether they in fact have his permission or not.

So, in a nutshell, you must take reasonable care for visitors. The test in law should you be sued would be what would a prudent person due to keep their home safe. That would be, for a fit and capable person, to make and maintain a path. For an old dear, that would be a lower standard of care. Each case is based on it’s merits but the suggestion that to do nothing would see you escape liability is nonsense. For a commercial organisation, such as the thread about the supermarket car park, the standard of care is even higher as the supermarket is inviting you on to their premises for commercial gain so they need to look after you.

Hope this helps. Dealing with personal injury claims every day for Insurance companies kind of ingrains this in your head.

Firstly the HSE deal exclusively with businesses not members of the public.

Secondly I believe I’m right in saying that there has NEVER been a successful personal prosecution in the uk against anyone in relation to this kind of activity.

Thirdly there is a principle in law (I should know exactly what it’s called but I’m dog tired) that says that by stepping outside in snowy and icy conditions you accept the risk of falling and injuring yourself

are you thinking of “violenti not fit injuria”…not sure it would apply to an icy drive causing a visitor to fall. It would certainly be no defence for a supermarket car park.

Jetwash it.

Volenti non fit injuria

That’s the bastard

You say it would be no defence against a supermarket for example but is that actually true? I’m sure claims have been settled in the past but have any you know of actually been tested in court?

I would laugh at anyone who tried to sue me for this, openly and loudly.

After jeering at them through my court appearance and subsequent sentence I would then go on all the chat shows and humiliate them for ever.

My path, drive, footpath and 2ft around the car parked on the road will always be clear.

If not cleared it soon become ice anyway and no chance of finding any grip.

This is no definitive answer as there are too many variables.

1.public or private land
2. was claimant invited onto premises or not (visitor ..postman??)
3. does land owner identify risk (often safer legally to ignore a risk as opposed to identify one and not deal properly)
4. is risk real and serious injury foreseeable
5. does owner deal with risk sufficiently

claims succeed or fail on the facts and are generally brought under the Highways act or Occupiers Liability act.

Despite above posts a vast majority of these claims do succeed.

wander down it with a can of gt85 and a lighter.

Regrettably claims get settled for commercial reasons only. Usually when there is a weakness in the defence and the risk of massive costs is real.

This is no definitive answer as there are too many variables.

I meant it was definative not the case that to clear snow results in a claim being successful.

is risk real and serious injury foreseeable

doesn’t have to be a serious injury

Hi All

Following the past two years of severe winters the Government comissioned the Dft to produce a definitive Snow Code for residents to feel unburdened by the threat of litigation if they cleared the path outside their property. The hyperlink is below I think.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_191868

Ed

agreed it doesnt have to be serious(got caught up in the moment there) but would have to be worth £1000(fast track) to be worth botherin (you will know what I mean and why)

but would have to be worth £1000(fast track) to be worth botherin (you will know what I mean and why)

a little bit of coaching from the lawyer will see the unfortunate injured party get over the threshold…… 🙄

think you may be watching a bit to much telly old bean.

mmmmmm…don’t think so on that one. It’s surprising (not) how many seemingly trivial injuries can have a 9 month period to full recovery…oh..look at that….that’s over £1000 value, and guess what….lawyers are entitled to their costs on an hourly rate (total £5,000) instead of £72 + vat. No motivation to coach there then is there???

its all snails and ginger beer if you ask me

its small claims stuff they dont really get involved.

As Miketually said.

I cleared a substantial bit of pavement last year, seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately I had no grit and it froze overnight making it 10 times worse than the bits with snow on.

I won’t bother this year unless I have grit as well.

Despite above posts a vast majority of these claims do succeed.

There’s a big difference between a court deciding an individual or company was at fault and a personal injury claim being settled because some of the required documentation was not available from the defence or that the claim was low enough in value to not be worth defending.

I’d like to read the case notes of a successful case, if you know of one