Whilst writing this article the snow is all around and everybody is talking about the weather, salt bins and getting the kids back to school! Whilst we all try to get back to whatever can be called “normal”, this month I am hoping to hang on to some Christmas cheer, with a little box of Christmas goodies!
Winter weather
Over the recent Arctic conditions the most common H&S phrase I have heard is “……they don’t grit the car parks because of H&S”. This is based on the assumption that to slip on ice is seen as “an act of god”, but if an attempt has been made to clear it up, then this can lead to a claim if it hasn’t been done well enough………..does this stand up from a legal point of view?
Firstly, I suppose it is important to state the obvious, with the risks being very real, with slips on the icy conditions accounting for a lot of accidents at work, particularly those that might involve visitors and staff on car parks, paths etc.
The 1957 Occupiers Liability Act puts a duty on the person in control of the land to make sure that they have taken all “reasonable” steps to make the land “reasonably” safe. Therefore this is the first test that you might need to consider……..that word “reasonable” keeps popping up, but it might be difficult to argue that doing nothing is reasonable.
The next bit to think about is from the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, with Regulation 12 putting an obligation on you to ensure the safe condition of floors and traffic routes. Paragraph 96 of the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) to these Regulations specifically refers to the current weather conditions, stating that…. “Arrangements should be made to minimise risks from snow and ice. This may involve gritting, snow clearing and closure of some routes, particularly outside stairs, ladders and walkways on roofs.”
What does this mean in practice, as if you don’t do it well enough, will you be liable? There are a couple of cases that give us a bit of a steer on what is expected……. Bloxham v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Fildes v International Computers. In these cases, it was established that a system for controlling the hazards of snow and ice discharges liability if it fulfils best practice, but is not expected to extend to unreasonable lengths.
Therefore, it would seem appropriate to devote resources to clearing the most used areas in priority to those less used. For example, this might involve gritting/clearing ice and snow twice a day, early in the morning and in the early evening (the times when most traffic – vehicle and pedestrian – is expected).
Don’t forget that employees have a duty under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to take care of their own safety……….remind them of this! Also, it is not just going to be slippery outside, but also inside from water and slush being carried in on shoes. Extra care with doormats and floor cleaning is going to be important to help reduce this hazard.
What about land not under your ownership, but where you might want to be neighbourly? Well, this is a more tricky issue as if an area of the public highway is cleared, there is a common-law duty of care to ensure that it is cleared properly and remains clear. Doing the decent thing may therefore open up a bit of a can of worms!
In summary, I would suggest you have a Winter Risk Management Plan, with documented risk assessments, contingency arrangements and documented checks. All of which should help to mitigate any liability and more importantly, stop people slipping in the first place.
SME Risk Assessment Problems
You may not be surprised to hear, but in a recent study by the European Agency for Safety and Health and Work up to 15% of small enterprises (up to 50 staff) did not carry out risk assessments.
Don’t be one of the 15%……….make sure you are meeting your legal obligation.
A visitor killed at a Scrapyard
I am afraid to say that another tragic death has been through the courts. It occurred at a Southampton scrapyard when a visitor sitting in a car checking for parts was crushed by a grab-claw crane used to move vehicles around the site.
The owners pleaded guilty to a number of offences, to include failing to carry out a risk assessment. The company was fined £50,000 plus costs of £34,373.
The HSE inspector stated that recycling sites were dangerous work places and that warning notices, communication of sites rules and the use of high-visibility clothing should all be used. They also stated that it was important to set the right scene for visitors, so that they realised it was dangerous, with the staff taking the issue seriously.
