ridiculous City Council laws/guidance on icy pavements!

DoubleCheese · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:16

I have an office on a fairly busy street in Norwich. The street is on an incline and this afternoon we had a fairly heavy dose of snow. Cars were slipping and sliding all over the place and pedestrians were gently picking their way along the pavements.

As the snow got compacted it got icy and in my view was lethal. So I thought I'd clear the pavement outside my office and hopefully a few other business would too. Just as I was about to start my boss said hang on, if you do that you'll be personally liable if anyone slips on your cleaned bit of pavement!

I thought he was bonkers so I called the City Council and they guy had to call Highways to get "reliable" information. After a few minutes he comes back to me and says that as long as I brush the snow away I'm ok. But if I grit the pavement (there's a grit box down the lane) and the snow melts then freezes again over night then I'm responsible for it and liable to being sued!!

The compacted snow isn't brushable, its hard ice now and I've helped up two people this afternoon. The thud of arse on pavement is vaguely amusing but someone will go over and get properly hurt soon.

Is this just the "where there's a blame there's a claim" culture gone mad? What if I slip on the "gritted" ice sheet that is my street (the gritter overspray sometimes gets on the pavements)? Can I sue the Council?

PhillyDee · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:18

I knew this a while back. It is stupid. Blame the blame culture.

Ross1234 · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:21

It said on the BBC news that there is no grounds for suing for gritting the pavement.

Nitefly · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:23

I almost gave my sledge to a child so that he could have a go today... then I remembered what tort has told me - don't do anything ever

mark66 · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:24

I have heard this too, but I wonder if its more of an urban myth as such. Surely no court would award such a claim? If it did then this country really is completely ******!!

Meridian · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:26

It's a little more complicated, but essentially: if you do anything at all to the snow, then you are liable for an injuries due to slipping, because the state of the pavement is now down to what you did. This is true even if they are better than when you started.

M

Mr Jones · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:27

Ross1234 said:
It said on the BBC news that there is no grounds for suing for gritting the pavement.

Not sure if it's me but I sense a pun.

All jokes aside, I think it's ridiculous that doing such an act and end up being sued, unless you're really bad at doing it - e.g. after sweeping, you put a bucket of cold water over it.

Tefal · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:29

Meridian said:
It's a little more complicated, but essentially: if you do anything at all to the snow, then you are liable for an injuries due to slipping, because the state of the pavement is now down to what you did. This is true even if they are better than when you started.

M

would it stand up in court though?

Or would it simply be technically valid enough to get in front of a judge before being dismissed?

Ross1234 · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:29

Mr Jones said:
Not sure if it's me but I sense a pun.

All jokes aside, I think it's ridiculous that doing such an act and end up being sued, unless you're really bad at doing it - e.g. after sweeping, you put a bucket of cold water over it.

It wasn't meant as a pun. They interviewed the head of the FSA and he said that you couldn't sue if you slipped where someone had cleared the pavement.

Nitefly · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:33

Time for a serious comment - there are no obvious answers to generalised legal conundrums. The facts of a case are different in every scenario. Secondly, the idea of tort is that if you take responsibility for something, you have to take that responsibility incredibly seriously. Raising duties of care is not a bad thing. If a decision seems against broad principles of justice, then it will not be decided that way. Nothing you hear in the media represents the reasoning behind a decision - if you are confused, try reading a corresponding ~30 odd page law report which will detail the facts of the case and the law in question.

arknor · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:34

ridiculous 10 years ago most people would have took a shovel and cleared the path outside of there house making the majority of the pavement in most areas walkable for old people.

these days you get sued for trying to help out the old folk of your area? :|

Mr Jones · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:36

Ross1234 said:
It wasn't meant as a pun. They interviewed the head of the FSA and he said that you couldn't sue if you slipped where someone had cleared the pavement.

Was more a general comment on the phrasing, 'grounds' and 'pavement'.
Anyway, I'm just kidding around.

On topic though, I wonder what would happen if you did clear the path and then put a 'Warning sign' up, visibly within the vicinity. Would that then be up to the pedestrian to take care?

DoubleCheese · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:47

So on to my other question, who is responsible for the pavements and their upkeep? The chap I spoke to said (after speaking to the guy in Highways) that the overspray from the gritters was enough to clear the pavements. It clearly isn't anywhere near enough.
You hear of people suing the council over uneven pavements etc. so someone is responsible. They are icy and unsafe and the council have no intention of actively clearing them. One section between two of the lanes was recently relaid with lovely flat smooth sandstone and copper. Its an area about the size of swimming pool, on an incline. I looks like an ice rink on the tilt! And because its away from the main roads it never gets gritted.

Nitefly · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:52

DoubleCheese said:
So on to my other question, who is responsible for the pavements and their upkeep?

The councils, subject to policy reasoning. It would not be good policy to place blame on the council by holding that they should have done more than could be reasonably expected given a particular set of circumstances.

D D Danneh · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:56

Mr Jones said:
On topic though, I wonder what would happen if you did clear the path and then put a 'Warning sign' up, visibly within the vicinity. Would that then be up to the pedestrian to take care?

Warning: Path may be less slippery than usual!

big_white_dog84 · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:29

Unfortunately unless you do it properly you could be maiking it worse. If you simply brush the compacted snow away, leaving the ice underneath (as I have seen several 'do-gooders' doing in my area) then you are making the conditions worse.

There is also a science behind gritting - has to be done at the correct time to avoid making things worse. If some do-gooder had gone out and made the pavement worse, and then i fell on my arse I would definitely have something to say to them.

goldilocks · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:32

big_white_dog84 said:
...

Nice overuse of the phrase do-gooder there.
Shame - I like it when people do good things. There's no bad intention behind what people are doing - foolishness maybe, but not malice.

Vonhelmet · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:33

It's spelt ridiculous you ritard.

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:40

I'm fed up of people saying that if you remove any snow from your pavement then you'll get sued. The simple answer is that you wont, or at least that there's no way that they'd win. Yes as some people above had said you COULD activate a duty of care, but would your actions be negligent? Is it reasonably foreseeable that through your actions someone becomes more, not less, likely to fall over? The answer to both of these is no and thus no liability accrues.

No-One · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:11

Does this mean if you slip and injure yourself on an untreated path you can sue god/the church for putting the snow there in the first place?