To Grit or Not to Grit (England)

[NightFeeds]

I am so confused.
We live on a new build estate and the road was not formally adopted by the council so we pay a small fee to a property management firm (which as an aside is an utter joke, they mow the verge once a year and take £150 per annum from each house for the work!)
Anyway. Last year our neighbour told us pretty firmly that we’d better grit outside our house because if anyone slipped on the pavement they could sue us. We complied and neighbourly peace and peace of mind was kept.
Tonight I went to do the same an another party advised me strongly NOT to, saying you are at risk of getting sued if you’ve interfered with a pavement with snow/ice and that you are supposed to leave it icy as that’s the only safe way not to get sued.
Please tell me someone knows the actual law on this as I can’t seem to do right either way. Council websites from a Google Search don’t seem to be helping as they are contradictory.

You are responsible for the path to your front door, and responsible if someone slips on it because you allow it to become icy - Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The OLA 1957 gives your duty to invited visitors, which includes the postman, delivery drivers, the milkman, etc.

You are not responsible for the public path in front of your property, but it's common sense and good manners to clear it. If you do clear it, then you must do it responsibly (not throwing down a bucket of hot water that then freezes to black ice) and once you start clearing it you should continue until the weather improves. It is difficult to be sued for clearing the public footpath if you do it sensibly, you're really only at risk if what you do makes it worse.

The HSE has some good advice on this if you're a business, but only take advice from the HSE website. Some other government sources (including ministers) have been known to give absolutely incorrect advice, including live on radio and television.

Tillows post is more accurate, although some may argue that it is negligent to not continue to clear a path or use something that will make it more dangerous. I have seen people use boiling water to clear a path, not recommended.

I think legally that if you grit but don’t do a good job or keep it gritted then you leave yourself open to legal action if someone slips.
The theory is that a pedestrian will take more care if it’s ungritted and the onus is on them to make a risk assessment whether it’s safe to walk on. If it’s gritted they assume it’s safe to walk on so may not be as cautious. Ie by gritting it you have indicated it’s safe and have taken on the risk assessment.

I used to own a business where there was a lot of footfall by members of the public. We once were sued when someone tripped on a paving stone that had been lifted by a tree root. I had a very informative chat with the insurance chat about responsibilities for pathways.

It’s the same for slippy floors were fluids have been spilled. For example in a supermarket. As long as the staff have put up a warning notice and sectioned it off it’s your responsibility to avoid it. You can’t sue them if you ignore warning.

It’s fairly obvious that a path hasn’t been cleared so it’s up to the pedestrian to decide.

Also you can’t sue check with the land registry what you are insured for. If the pavement doesn’t belong to your house your insurance doesn’t cover it.

Also, this link:

www.apil.org.uk/press-release/Will-I-be-liable-if-I-clear-snow-and-ice-and-someone-is-injured#:~:text=The%20myth%20that%20clearing%20snow,a%20leading%20personal%20injury%20lawyer.

From Google:

In the UK, it's unlikely that you'll be sued if you clear or grit snow and ice from outside your house and someone falls, as long as you're careful and use common sense:

•	There's no law requiring you to clear or grit public pavements. 

•	Ministers have encouraged "public-spiritedness" and said to use "common sense" and "benefit of the doubt" when considering litigation. 

•	A court would have to find that you were "wholly incompetent or irresponsible" for someone to successfully sue you. 

•	You'd need to have created a new or greater risk for someone to be able to sue you. 

•	The injured party would need to prove that your actions directly resulted in them slipping and injuring themselves. 

•	People using areas affected by snow and ice also have a responsibility to be careful. 


Private landowners and businesses are responsible for gritting their own premises, including car parks. National Highways is responsible for major roads, while local councils are responsible for minor and local roads, as well as some pavements

When my parents had a pub, if they salted/gritted outside it on the footpath, they could be sued if anyone had an accident - but not if they didn't (not sure if they could sue the council for not gritting....). It sounds ludicrous but freezing is an act of god - if you've put something down it could be that which causes the accident.

Now my dad usually did it anyway but made sure to do a good job so it was clear. He didn't want someone to get hurt because he was afraid of being sued. No-one ever fell over there (which is a minor miracle given how drunk many customers were lol).

Ask yourself this.... if you grit the pavement and someone does fall.... how likely are they to actually be the sort to sue, and how are they going to prove it was YOU that gritted if you just kept denying it and saying you have no idea who did? Also, what are the odds someone falls on the one safe bit?

I am not a lawyer but I doubt you could be sued for NOT doing it

If you don’t own that land outside your house I don’t see why you have to pay to maintain it