Accident at car dealership - what are my rights?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

stevetuk said:

This morning I brought my vehicle to the car dealership for a service and MOT. The forecourt was left untreated and was an ice rink, but I actually slipped and fell on ice while walking up the sloped main entrance, so it was within the main entranceway. I have a swollen arm, wrist and have pain in my neck, elbow and shoulder. It could have been a lot worse I know!

I reported this to the staff inside. They said they hadn't gritted because they'd been told not to. They said they weren't liable for any accidents. I wasn't asked to complete an accident form, they didn't apologise, and nothing was done at all. I am not seeking compensation, but I want to know my rights and what steps they should have taken. It's gone completely unreported in essence. Any advice?

This isn't a consumer rights question and if you don't want to seek compensation there seems little point in asking what they should have done or what your legal rights are.

FWIW I'm not covinced that the dealership does not a have a legal duty to ensure that their premises are safe for both employees and customers, and if I were you I'd ask the question again over at Personal Injury - LegalBeagles Forum

From my understanding the Occupiers Liability Act requires a duty of care to visitors but no idea to what extent that covers.

stevetuk

Yes, done some further reading - the Occupiers Liability Act (1957) states that an occupier of a premises has a common duty of care towards visitors. This means that they must ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. During cold weather, this can include keeping areas free from ice or snow that could cause accidents.

All business owners are legally required to protect customers' health and safety whilst on their premises. If they have failed to mitigate hazards, they could be deemed to have put a customer at risk and may be responsible.

More on retail premises here - https://www.hse.gov.uk/retail/slips-and-trips.htm

So, there is a duty of care to customers, as I suspected. It's strange that people commenting here don't believe that to be the case. 

I'll take the advice about looking in a different forum, thanks for the input.

MacPingu1986

stevetuk said:

Yes, done some further reading - the Occupiers Liability Act (1957) states that an occupier of a premises has a common duty of care towards visitors. This means that they must ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. During cold weather, this can include keeping areas free from ice or snow that could cause accidents.

All business owners are legally required to protect customers' health and safety whilst on their premises. If they have failed to mitigate hazards, they could be deemed to have put a customer at risk and may be responsible.

More on retail premises here - https://www.hse.gov.uk/retail/slips-and-trips.htm

So, there is a duty of care to customers, as I suspected. It's strange that people commenting here don't believe that to be the case. 

I'll take the advice about looking in a different forum, thanks for the input.

OP - If you look at that HSE page those slips & trips examples all relate to where the employer themselves has created the hazard/it would be unexpected, ie: chemicals on the floor, floors wet following cleaning etc... 

Businesses do have a reasonable duty of care towards visitors/customers but in the context of a hazard such as icy weather which isn't created by the employer and has a degree of "obviousness" to it, the expectations generally seem to be very light. There's limited case law but to give one example it was found that a local council didn't need to grit its car parks to discharge that duty.

stevetuk

MacPingu1986 said:

stevetuk said:

Yes, done some further reading - the Occupiers Liability Act (1957) states that an occupier of a premises has a common duty of care towards visitors. This means that they must ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. During cold weather, this can include keeping areas free from ice or snow that could cause accidents.

All business owners are legally required to protect customers' health and safety whilst on their premises. If they have failed to mitigate hazards, they could be deemed to have put a customer at risk and may be responsible.

More on retail premises here - https://www.hse.gov.uk/retail/slips-and-trips.htm

So, there is a duty of care to customers, as I suspected. It's strange that people commenting here don't believe that to be the case. 

I'll take the advice about looking in a different forum, thanks for the input.

OP - If you look at that HSE page those slips & trips examples all relate to where the employer themselves has created the hazard/it would be unexpected, ie: chemicals on the floor, floors wet following cleaning etc... 

Businesses do have a reasonable duty of care towards visitors/customers but in the context of a hazard such as icy weather which isn't created by the employer and has a degree of "obviousness" to it, the expectations generally seem to be very light. There's limited case law but to give one example it was found that a local council didn't need to grit its car parks to discharge that duty.

The Occupiers Liability Act still applies.

In addition, you were selective in how you reported that particular case. It equally applies to supermarkets, where the advice is written as follows:

What would happen if a supermarket didn’t grit its car park?

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 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 the ice to make the customers reasonably safe when visiting the supermarket.

Emphasis mine, but clearly the same context applies with a car dealership.

Okell

stevetuk said:

MacPingu1986 said:

stevetuk said:

Yes, done some further reading - the Occupiers Liability Act (1957) states that an occupier of a premises has a common duty of care towards visitors. This means that they must ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. During cold weather, this can include keeping areas free from ice or snow that could cause accidents.

All business owners are legally required to protect customers' health and safety whilst on their premises. If they have failed to mitigate hazards, they could be deemed to have put a customer at risk and may be responsible.

More on retail premises here - https://www.hse.gov.uk/retail/slips-and-trips.htm

So, there is a duty of care to customers, as I suspected. It's strange that people commenting here don't believe that to be the case. 

I'll take the advice about looking in a different forum, thanks for the input.

OP - If you look at that HSE page those slips & trips examples all relate to where the employer themselves has created the hazard/it would be unexpected, ie: chemicals on the floor, floors wet following cleaning etc... 

Businesses do have a reasonable duty of care towards visitors/customers but in the context of a hazard such as icy weather which isn't created by the employer and has a degree of "obviousness" to it, the expectations generally seem to be very light. There's limited case law but to give one example it was found that a local council didn't need to grit its car parks to discharge that duty.

The Occupiers Liability Act still applies...

... 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 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 the ice to make the customers reasonably safe when visiting the supermarket.

That would be my understanding too.

user1977

Bradden said:

Some companies I've worked for specifically don't as inadequate gritting could potentially lead to liability if someone slipped - including the employee gritting/

Slipping when gritting | Thompsons Solicitors

That doesn't mean not doing it at all is a "safer" solution (as presumably the same employee, plus all the others, plus any visitors, are likely to be walking over the completely untreated surface...).

Okell

(Removed by Forum Team)

I'd recommend Itshide or Vibram Commando soles.

When I went from the Isle of Man (very mild winters) to university in the UK in the late 70s, I couldn't walk on ice or compacted snow.

Itshide commando soles solved the problem.   Commando Rubber Sole | Crockett & Jones – Crockett & Jones UK

(You don't have to spend £600+ on a pair of boots from Crockett & Jones but it does make sense to put them on, or buy them on, a good quality pair of shoes or boots.  I was still using my original shoes 25 years later)

MacPingu1986

stevetuk said:

MacPingu1986 said:

stevetuk said:

Yes, done some further reading - the Occupiers Liability Act (1957) states that an occupier of a premises has a common duty of care towards visitors. This means that they must ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. During cold weather, this can include keeping areas free from ice or snow that could cause accidents.

All business owners are legally required to protect customers' health and safety whilst on their premises. If they have failed to mitigate hazards, they could be deemed to have put a customer at risk and may be responsible.

More on retail premises here - https://www.hse.gov.uk/retail/slips-and-trips.htm

So, there is a duty of care to customers, as I suspected. It's strange that people commenting here don't believe that to be the case. 

I'll take the advice about looking in a different forum, thanks for the input.

OP - If you look at that HSE page those slips & trips examples all relate to where the employer themselves has created the hazard/it would be unexpected, ie: chemicals on the floor, floors wet following cleaning etc... 

Businesses do have a reasonable duty of care towards visitors/customers but in the context of a hazard such as icy weather which isn't created by the employer and has a degree of "obviousness" to it, the expectations generally seem to be very light. There's limited case law but to give one example it was found that a local council didn't need to grit its car parks to discharge that duty.

The Occupiers Liability Act still applies.

In addition, you were selective in how you reported that particular case. It equally applies to supermarkets, where the advice is written as follows:

What would happen if a supermarket didn’t grit its car park?

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 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 the ice to make the customers reasonably safe when visiting the supermarket.

Emphasis mine, but clearly the same context applies with a car dealership.

I'm not disputing that the Occupier's liability Act applies - I covered this in my post where I explained businesses have a reasonable duty of care towards visitors and customers.

I'm also not sure what case you're looking at but in the case I'm referring to, I didn't make any selecting reporting -  the court of appeal in that case didn't make *any* obligation for supermarkets to grit car parks to meet the reasonableness test. It did reference that the measures expected against "obvious" hazards are generally much less than those expected for those relating to unnatural or unexpected substances or spillages.

ie: in the context of ice on exposed open ground in winter (where there have probably been wider weather warnings), it's a reasonably expected hazard so obligations to grit to meet that duty of care are likely to be little to minimal. 

Based on the above my view is that any claim brought against the car dealership for breaching its duty of care here would be very unlikely to succeed.

Okell

It's all moot as the OP doesn't want compensation...

TheSpectator

Okell said:

It's all moot as the OP doesn't want compensation...

Which begs the question, what do they want?