By Andrew Welch, Partner and Head of Insurance at North West law firm, Stephensons Solicitors LLP
In the current spell of snowy weather many of us will have unfortunately experienced slips and falls on icy pavements. Sadly these can sometimes lead to very serious injuries and minds then turn to the issue of compensation.
The ‘compensation culture’ debate tends to generate a lot of heat but not necessarily much light, with extravagant claims sometimes being made on both sides. For example, those such as the Daily Mail who deplore the so called ‘compensation culture’ have warned readers that to clear their garden paths of snow and ice invites a claim if someone falls, whereas on the other side, some in the claims industry encourage people to believe that they are entitled to compensation whatever the cause of the accident. As always, the truth lies somewhere between.
Highway Authorities, usually local councils, do have an obligation to clear the highway of snow and ice but this is subject to reasonable practicability and the number of defences which mean that in reality it could be very difficult for someone to successfully sue their local council if they slipped and fell on an icy public pavement.
Householders and other occupiers of private premises also have a duty to keep their premises safe, but in this case it stems from the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 which requires occupiers to take such care as is reasonable to see that visitors to their premises are reasonably safe. What does this mean in practical terms for householders who might want to clear their garden paths of snow and ice?
There is not a lot of case law on the subject, which perhaps suggests that not many claims have been brought and the current furore of the subject is perhaps overblown. However it would seem to boil down to this: every case will be taken on its merits and in order to be successfully sued, a householder would have to have done something which was unreasonable, in other words something which one would not expect a reasonable householder to have done.
While it is not possible to judge with absolute certainty the way that the Courts would approach individual cases, it does not seem unreasonable for householders to clear snow and ice from their paths and therefore it is difficult to see a Judge criticising them for that.
It may be that the householder does something which makes the situation worse and that could be a different kettle of fish. For example if a householder pours hot water on their path to try and clear it but the result is an ice rink, which causes a lawful visitor, such as a postman, to slip and fall then the householder could be liable. In that context the householder would no doubt look to their household insurance policy to cover them for the defence and payment of any such claim.
However the injured claimant would have to show that it was the action of the householder which caused the injury, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that their action would cause injury.
There was a Court of Appeal case in 1991, Murphy –v- City of Bradford Metropolitan Council in which a school was held liable when someone fell on an icy path which had been gritted but, the Court found, not rendered safe enough for use. What seems to have been particularly persuasive for the Court in that case is that it was a path on a particularly steep slope, on which a number of other people had slipped and a handrail was subsequently fitted because it was so dangerous. If it had been a more “normal” path the Court’s view may have been different ,which is possibly why it is so difficult to find cases where householders and other occupiers have been successfully sued for accidents involving snow and ice on their property.
The Government Whip, Lord Davies of Oldham, told fellow peers in a recent House of Lords debate: “If people totally clear away all snow and return the pavement to the situation it was in before the snow landed, they have done an excellent job. If it is done in a less than complete manner and leaves ice, which is more dangerous than the original covering of snow, it may not be the Local Authority responsible but the householder for having dealt with the pavement.”
Therefore it seems that the message to householders is, if you are going to clear the paths on your own property of snow and ice you need to do it properly so that it doesn’t make the situation worse.
There is of course no obligation on householders to clear the public highway as that is the duty of the Highway Authority. Indeed a householder could invite a compensation claim if they cleared the snow on the public pavement outside their house but in doing so created an accumulation of ice which caused someone to fall.
As always with the law, it is not clear cut, but householders can take comfort from the fact that there have been very few cases where they have been successfully sued for snow and ice on their premises. Judges are unlikely to criticise people who have behaved reasonably and in the final analysis the ultimate protection is having a good household insurance policy which covers the householder for claims against them.
The views expressed in this article are the personal views of Andrew Welch and are not those of Stephensons Solicitors LLP. This article does not constitute legal advice.
ENDS
Notes to editors
About Stephensons:
Stephensons is a specialist provider of legal helplines to businesses and brokers, based in the North West of England with a national reputation and reach.
The latest edition of Legal 500 recommends Stephensons and ranks the firm as a top 60 UK law firm.
Media information: Lianne Tracey
Stephensons Solicitors LLP
T: 01616 966 229