Ready to Participate?
Ready to Participate?
Get Started!
Log In

if a superstore puts down salt and it's more slipery than the snow, and you slip over, can you sew?
infact the snow had gone, the ground was dry, and there was salt everywhere. this was in the carpark walkway.
asked in law, legal, ice

seacommander answers:

I see no reason why you can't. There are enough companies around nowadays prepared to take on these cases on a no win no fee basis. However, before proceeding, just stop to consider that the supermarket probably felt it was acting in the best interest of its customers in trying to keep the walkways snow and ice free. If they hadn't taken any measures to clear the ice and snow would you have considered sueing because thay had failed in that respect.
Personally I have sympathy for the supermarket - they would seem to be in a no win situation. They are 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' - as the expression goes.
At the end of the day I think it's a matter or personal conscience.

/ reply

high1971 answers:

you can sew your clothes if you rip them
but can you sue them then the answer is no you can not well you will not win if you do as it has been tried many times before and failed as weather is classed as an act of god and the adding of grit not salt is an act of law and must be done for the safety of users to the gritted surface

/ reply

macavity answers:

A lot of firms now will not clear snow away for fear of being sued now days so leave it to clear on it's own.This way they are not liable if you slip.I agree with the above that they are in a no win situation.Poeple complain if they do not clear it away and are likely to be sued if they do

/ reply

xoloriib answers:

sue - sew

/ reply

DragonsDen answers:

It is a common misconception that land owners should not clear snow and ice as they will be liable if a member of the public subsequently falls over. customers are "invited" onto the premises of the supermarket and leaving the paths un-gritted or un-salted when icy is a breach of the duty of the shop owner under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. the shop owner is required to take account of weather forecasts to have salt in stock, to clear a safe path through the snow/ice and to put up warning notices or shut the premises if necessary. the liability for negligence is complicated. to hold the shop owner liable, you would have to show that you would not have slipped if the ice hadn’t been cleared. On the other hand, the shop is clearly in breach of public liability if it fails to grit or salt paths during severely cold weather. if they didn’t, they may be liable for any accidents that occur. Liable, that is, at least to a degree. if you sue, the supermarket will undoubtedly be able to demonstrate that they exercised their duty of car as required under law by, carrying out a risk assessment, having the required stocks of salt or grit, clearing snow and applying salt to melt the ice, etc. if everyone took your attitude and tried to sue despite them taking every necessary precaution, they would have no option but to close the store in freezing weather. do you really want this? probably not. many other people could be severely inconvenienced just because you were careless and slipped.

/ reply


No Comments