The duty of care to grit public car parksMar 01, 2019
The Court of Appeal has recently considered the duty of care owed by Local Authorities to grit public car parks.
The case went back to the cold winter of 2012. Mr Ivor Cook who was 78 at the time visited the Bush Car Park which is situated in a suburban area of Swansea. It was a Council car park managed by Swansea City Council.
This car park in question was reasonably small accommodating 40 cars. It was open 24 hours a day 7 days a week and was open to the elements. The evidence was that Swansea City Council had 46 car parks to look after, most of which were unmanned. The Council’s policy was not to proactively grit the unmanned car parks. However, if a member of the public reports a dangerous area caused by ice in the car park then they would send someone out to grit it. This is caused a reactive system of gritting.
Ivor Cook had parked his car at about 10.30am and was walking towards the ticket machine on a slight slope when he slipped on black ice near the ticket machine. He fell and sustained injuries. His case was brought under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and when his case was heard in the Swansea County Court the Judge found that the Council was not in breach of a duty of care under the 1957 Act. Mr Cook felt that was unduly harsh and took his case to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal reminded itself that in these sorts of cases, the Court had to look at a number of factors including: –
- The likelihood that someone may be injured.
- The seriousness of the injury that may incur.
- The social value of the activity which gives rise to the risk.
- The cost of preventative measures.
- There is also generally no duty to protect against obvious danger.
Factors 1 & 5. Applying those principles to this case, the risk of ice in the cold weather is obvious and people out and about can be reasonably expected to what out for ice and to take care. This car park did not pose a particular risk compared to any other of the Defendant’s car parks. There had been no previous reports of dangerous ice, nor any previous accidents due to ice.
2. The seriousness of injury. This was a rather neutral factor as slipping injuries can cause trivial or sometimes serious injuries.
3. Social value of the activity which gives risk to the risk. It had to be borne in mind that 24-hour parking was a useful facility. If gritting of unmanned car parks is required whenever there was a report of icy conditions, then the Council would be forced to close the car parks in case of adverse weather which would cause considerable inconvenience to local residents and visitors and would also be very difficult to manage.
4. The cost of preventative measures. It was simply too high a burden to suggest that the Council should grit all their car parks by hand as this would involve a significant use of staff and resources. This measure was disproportionate and expensive in relation to the risk and averted resources from situations where attention was more urgently required.
Mr Cook therefore lost his case.
This case does not mean that an occupier can never be liable for failing to grit a car park. Every case has to be decided on its own facts. For example, when considering the duty of a supermarket to grit its car parks a very different consideration would apply as the supermarket has only the one car park to look after and if customers are coming to the car park to spend money in the supermarket it is only reasonable that the supermarket should take reasonable measures to grit any areas of ice to make the customers reasonably safe when visiting the supermarket.