Forum menu
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.