[Closed] Where there's blame, there's a claim quandary?

Sympathies to your OH, but surely one of those things?

"Held to account"?

Did they go out and put some ice down for her to slip on, or did it just get cold one night in January? Sympathies to her, but it gets cold at this time of year and ice forms. That does not mean that someone is negligent. Shit happens.

It was cold, there was ice, she fell over. Horrid for her but agree with Ashy on this one.

It was cold, there was ice, she fell over. Horrid for her but agree with Ashy on this one.

+1

what they said its not really negligent for ice to form when its cold and the accident is not life changing just annoying

I burned my finger badly at Chimichanga on a sizzling platter back in the autumn, totally my fault.

One of those things, I was dull, yet everyone at work asked if I'd complained, was seeking compensation or had got any free meals out of it.

They were genuinely bemused that I just took it on the chin and didn't try to get some recompense, for my own stupidness.

Claim culture.

It's crap, but suck it up, buttercup.

I can't even see how this was negligent on their part. Assuming you mean a drain (and not a manhole cover) the there's no way to grit it anyway - the grit would just fall down the drain.

Take this as a lesson. Don't walk on drains covered in ice.

Well, yes, she didnt even think about making any claim until 2 of her friends said she must, as the Company really should try to mitigate the effects of the ice (grit it etc).
She probably wont bother, but it is pretty annoying for her to be laid up aching.

nahh to all them lot, try a claim, why not, what have you got to lose? Everyone can use some extra dosh. They'll likely have liability insurance anyway.

Company really should try to mitigate the effects of the ice (grit it etc).

Nasty thing to happen and I wish her well, but it really is just one of them things.

[nearlyajoke]Was she on her way to Specsavers?[/nearlyajoke] 😉

Yeah, what they said. Normally I'm pretty keen for people to claim where someone else (usually a car driver) has been negligent but it's hard to blame anyone for the presence of ice unless exacerbated by poor maintenance or something like that. Eg if there was a dripping gutter that had turned the place into an ice rink, she might have a case.

I'm not aware that anyone has been successfully sued for not gritting? Seem to remember that this was raised a while back as to whether you'd be sued if you cleared snow from the pavement outside your house and someone slipped on the subsequent ice.

Sunburn, stupid comparison

If the postman walks up your drive tomorrow and slips breaking there arm, would you consider yourself liable for not gritting the drive?

You're not wrong 😳

Where's the car park? I could do with a new bike....

Was it freak local conditions causing black ice in that car park but nowhere else? Or was it reasonable to assume that freezing temps might make things slippy? If it was me I'd tell myself I'd been a tit for not looking where I was going.

Google suggests otherwise though.

http://insider.zurich.co.uk/legal-matters/firms-failure-remove-car-park-ice-leads-damages-claim/

Is this a local business she wants to keep using?

I think every council in the land would go bust if a claim like that was processed.

The argument is (just saying, not agreeing with it), that as the Company, (actually, it is local, but a National chain, possibly a franchise) knows it has many people calling in to them in the mornings for appointments. Being as their car park is an ice rink, they should do something to make people aware of the slippery nature, by, either putting up a sign, or, gritting it, which is what they did yesterday (I went to fetch her car).
They have been on the phone, and one of them is coming round tomorrow to see how she is.

Am genuinely very sorry for the injuries caused. Must be a right pain!
What did your OH do to mitigate the effects of the ice? I assume she knew it was icy? What had the weather forecast predicted? Had she previously scraped ice from her car and whilst driving it seen the temperature? Did the car park look different, i.e. white with ice? What shoes was she wearing? If she knew it was icy did she wear those Yaktrax type grippers?
I'm with everyone else. I know its difficult for both of you, but shit happens!

Hmm, I'm normally one of the first to suggest that people should claim for genuine negligence*, and almost tempted here, but I'm struggling to see genuine negligence. I suspect if she had been wanting to claim then I might not argue against that, but if she doesn't want to then probably best all round to chalk it down as one of those things.

* though I should point out that I probably could have claimed for medical negligence after both my hernia ops but didn't - was a bit tempted after my first one as it would have been a private hospital picking up the tab, but not at all when it would have been the NHS

Please don't claim.

My sincere sympathies to your OH, but it really was just one of those things.

Growing up in Canada, I have seen people slip on ice and fall under buses; I have seen people get nasty head gashes just by walking down a pavement; I myself have broken my right hand by falling on someone's drive. I don't think that the idea of claiming against anyone would have crossed anyone's mind.

What's happened here? How come everyone has gone all nicey nice? The op would normally have been torn a new one for even suggesting it was someone else's fault.
And apologies for not saying in my last post, hope she gets better soon.

their car park is an ice rink

Why was it in that condition? This is key to whether the business could be deemed negligent, and consequently be held liable.

It might be that there was sudden snowfall/freezing rain only a few hours or less before your other half fell over, in which case there may have been little that the business could reasonably have done.

At the other extreme, it might be that the car park has poor drainage with the result that pools of water occur every time it rains and do not drain away, and will inevitably freeze in winter whenever the temperature falls to zero. In that sort of scenario, the business should have been taking active steps to fix the drainage, and in the meantime it should have procedures in place whenever ice formed, such as prompt gritting/salting. In that event, I would think you should most certainly claim: it's important where businesses are irresponsible and they cause harm as a result, that there is some comeback (even if it's their insurers that pay), otherwise there is no incentive for them to properly manage the risks on their premises.

The business may not own/control the car park, of course. Might be the owners/landlords issue.

Jesus wept. You need a local newspaper article with a sad compo face to have any chance of a successful claim.

ice is a natural thing this time of year dress your feet accordingly, look where youre going etc, as son as she puts in a claim of her name will go off the customers list in the office she was visiting.

She will recover, compo or not.

Do the right thing. Don't complain. I know the potential for money is tempting but you'll feel better about not pursuing it.

Is it just me being 'served' adverts for solicitors at the bottom of this thread?

Sympathies with the OP.

However there's probably a sign in the car park disclaiming the owners of any responsibilities to anyone using the car park, and if any salt/grit had been put down they would have compromised the original sign.

She fell and it is someone else's fault?

Really FFS get a grip.

However there's probably a sign in the car park disclaiming the owners of any responsibilities to anyone using the car park

You can't avoid your legal responsibilities just by putting up a sign saying so. It doesn't work like that.

If you truly believe the company has done something wrong and were negligent then sue. If not then it is just one of those things, Would you sue the council for ice on a pavement or road?

I came off the road bike on some mud a farmer a deposited on the road around their field entrance and broke a finger a few weeks ago. I feel they are more to blame than the OPs example but I'm still think it's just one of things. Perhaps if the injury was life changing my decision would be different

[quote=edlong ]Is it just me being 'served' adverts for solicitors at the bottom of this thread?

I suspect looking at who else has posted on this thread you're not alone, but I'm not seeing any - that would be taking the p 😉

It's perfectly normal for a car park to be slippery in sub zero temperatures, if you fall over because of that then it is 100% your own fault, wear better footwear or improve your balance

OP salted your drive yet....

Another scenario, suppose frost was predicted overnight, the company gritted the car park, it then pisses down for an hour and washes the grit away, then it clears and freezes making it icy.
Who's fault and who is liable?

TBH as much as I sympathise with your other half, it's her own fault for not realising it was icy as I assume she must have noticed the cold weather and seen the ice when driving in. TBH, if I owned a business and people were suing me over an icy carpark I'd be inclined to make the carpark staff-only and make people find somewhere else to park. It's a hassle you don't really need.

It's -10 here and we have snow/ice all over the place. Some places are gritted, some are cleared, some are not. If I went for a ride or walk and binned it on some ice I'd be more inclined to chalk it up to experience/stupidity than look for someone else to blame.

Surely, lawyers are better placed to work out if its negligence? Otherwise it's just a bunch of opinions.
Put in a claim, see what happens...

(Not what I would do, by the way!)

Lets assume that the car park is a dedicated one (or closely shared by the business) and not a public one that people just happen to use.

Health and Safety at Work Act applies:

It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

There is a specific duty to make the premises and means of entry/exit safe (a car park, if owned by the business) would form part of this.

It shall be the duty of each person who has, to any extent, control of premises to which this section applies or of the means of access thereto or egress therefrom or of any plant or substance in such premises to take such measures as it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the premises, all means of access thereto or egress therefrom available for use by persons using the premises, and any plant or substance in the premises or, as the case may be, provided for use there, is or are safe and without risks to health.

Legally, the business has a responsibility to safeguard visitors such as your OH from harm. Ice is a risk that would be forseen in a risk assessment and they are required to take reasonable steps to prevent injury.

"Reasonable" is where it all becomes a bit subjective. Signage, gritting or closing off the car park are all quite reasonable steps to take.

HSE generally takes the view that members of the public are completely idiots (because some of them are) and need additional care over, for example, an employee. It is forseeable that some utter tit will arrive with poor footwear and not paying attention. A business has a legal obligation to
safeguard that person, whereas joe public has no obligation not to be a tit.

I could quite believe that she has a winnable claim.

I also believe that (assuming this was normal ice that happens on cold days) she slipped on ice in a public place and that just sucks. If it was a pavement, you probably wouldn't claim so why claim because you walked off the pavement into a private car park?

Well this was a surprise :/

I am not going to say whether you should claim in this case, but I suggest you consider the long-term effects of the injury while deciding.

In our case uneven steps and a wonky slab caused a trip and a fractured finger joint resulting in permanent inability to write correctly and pain/weakness.

We were also told to "suck it up" by the majority of forum members, and I wish we hadn't....

We were also told to "suck it up" by the majority of forum members, and I wish we hadn't....

Under 6 years ago? Go for it. Very different with a permanat loss

Right, lets get this clear, my OH was not going to claim, and hadnt even thought of it, but 2 of her friends said she should.
We are not money grabbers, so stop the stupid comments some of you, I asked for opinions, I didnt say she wanted to make a claim, and she probably wont.

We were also told to "suck it up" by the majority of forum members, and I wish we hadn't....

So make a claim then ?

What's stopping you.

We are not money grabbers, so stop the stupid comments some of you

New here?

So make a claim then? What's stopping you.

Nothing, but that's another thread/story.

Right, lets get this clear, my OH was [b]not going to claim[/b], and hadnt even thought of it,---- I didnt say she wanted to make a claim, and she [b]probably[/b] wont.

You can see the confusion folks might have. It was icy weather, she slipped on ice. Simple. To claim would be low.

Did the owners/proprietors of the car park take [i]reasonable[/i] action to prevent people incurring foreseeable injuries on their premises? If not they [i]could[/i] be liable for negligence.
I'm sure an ambulance chasing lawyer could winkle a couple of thou out of them if engaged...

We are not money grabbers, so stop the stupid comments some of you, I asked for opinions, I didnt say she wanted to make a claim, and she probably wont.

Then why post?

So make a claim then? What's stopping you.

Nothing, but that's another thread/story.

Update the "wonky steps" thread then 😉

Personally I wouldn't make a claim for something such as slipping on ice in a car park. Speaking from an insurance point of view unless, as others have stated, the car park owner / operator had been negligent and had a hand in causing the problem - blocked drain that freezes over, leaking pipe providing source for water to freeze etc - there probably isn't too high a chance of a claim being successful, especially if there is signage up warning the surface may be slippy / icey (signage is enough to deliver your duty of care and there is no requirement to grit - infact you're more likely to be found liable if you do grit as youre accepting the liability for ice by taking this mitigating action and a member of the public is more likely to reasonabley assume that there will be no ice by seeing it's been gritted, where as it may still be icey in patches)

Most of what has been said so far is complete tosh. This is the law:

Section 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 states as follows:
(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.

The business owed your wife a duty to take reasonable care to see that she was reasonably safe whilst using their premises (assuming it is their car park).

Disclaimers in relation to personal injury have no effect in English law.

Signage will not protect an occupier from liability unless the sign by itself was sufficient to keep the visitor reasonably safe. A sign is unlikely to have that effect in the case of ice.

Whether the occupier would be held liable in any case depends entirely upon the facts of the individual case.

In this case, was your wife reasonably safe? Probably not. Whilst ground conditions generally may have been icy (and she should proceed accordingly) ice can be very difficult to see and its presence is likely to lead to a finding that she was not reasonably safe. You say the car park was covered in ice which presumably means it was impossible or very difficult to avoid. This again would tend to justify a decision that she was not reasonably safe. But it all depends on the facts, and the attitude of the judge to them.

Secondly, did the business take reasonable care? Again it depends on the facts. Did they do anything at all? Were icy conditions forecast? How late in the day was it and how long had the ice been there? How large is the business and what resources do they have. Do they have a grit box? Do they have a contract with a gritting service? Did they inspect the car park to check it was safe? Did they close the car park if it was too icy to be safe? Or did they put out any warning signs, particularly if it was black ice? And, most importantly, can they prove any of this? The larger the business the more the Court is likely to expect them to do. If they didn't do anything at all and the Court considers that your wife was not reasonably safe the claim will succeed. If, for example, the drains on the car park were blocked and this allowed water to collect on the surface and freeze the occupier is highly likely to be found liable because of its negligence in failing to deal with an obvious and foreseeable hazard (that blocked drains would lead to icing).

If the business is found liable there is a good chance (again dependent on the facts and at the absolute discretion of the judge) that a Court would also decide that your wife was partly at fault (probably no more than 25%) and her compensation will be reduced accordingly.

All of this depends on the facts and very much on the attitude of the individual judge who decides the case if it reaches trial. Most judges are inherently sympathetic to claimants.

Claims like this are made every day, whatever visitors to this forum may think. That is why insurers exist and precisely why this business will have public liability insurance. A fractured humerus is a nasty injury that could impact upon her lifestyle for months and, depending on the precise fracture, could have permanent consequences.

Will (not should) they be held accountable? Impossible to say without knowing more but more likely than not (based upon the fact the car park was covered in ice). Most insurers are likely to simply pay up.

Should they be claimed against? That is a matter for your wife, but this is why the law of Negligence exists. Any decent solicitor will be able to advise her on the strength of a claim, based on the facts.