IOSH is encouraging businesses to be good employers and neighbours when it comes to keeping their premises and surroundings free from snow and ice, following misleading and inaccurate reports to the contrary in the national media.
The Institution was contacted for a comment last week by journalists from the Sunday Telegraph, who were working on a story about gritting in the current conditions. It readily agreed to provide a comment, and directed the journalists to related information on the subject from SHP while it formulated its response.
In the final article, however, published in yesterday’s paper, the official comment from IOSH was omitted, with a direct quote from the SHP article included instead and presented as “IOSH guidance”. The SHP article, which originally appeared in the December 2008 issue, was part of the magazine’s regular and longstanding ‘Just Ask’ Q&A column, in which queries from practitioners are answered by experts from Croner Consulting.
The response to a request for clarification of what is “reasonably practicable” when it comes to keeping a footpath leading to a business premises clear of snow and ice concluded thus: “When clearing snow and ice, it is probably worth stopping at the boundaries of the property under your control. 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. If this duty is not fulfilled, it can lead to an action for damages against the company, e.g. if members of the public, assuming that the area is still clear of ice and thus safe to walk on, slip and injure themselves.”
This advice is entirely accurate and in keeping with the law as it currently stands and, indeed, was echoed by IOSH’s policy and technical director, Richard Jones, in his disregarded official comment. He said: “Deciding whether to grit beyond the boundaries of their property needs to be carefully considered by companies. If access to the premises is covered in ice, companies may choose to grit the access to help their staff and visitors arrive and leave safely, even though it’s not their property. However, in this instance, if they failed to grit the surface properly and someone had an accident as a result, then they could incur some liability.”
Although the Telegraph article also acknowledged that “under current legislation, householders and companies open themselves up to legal action if they try to clear a public pavement outside their property”, and quoted the president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as saying “if you do nothing you cannot be liable; if you do something, you could be liable to a legal action” it presented the SHP article’s general advice as a “warning” from “the professional body that represents health and safety experts” not to grit public paths to avoid being sued. The story was then taken up by other sections of the press that have traditionally followed the ‘elf and safety gone mad’ line.
IOSH subsequently issued a statement clarifying that the comment attributed to it was not its official position, or advice, and emphasising — as it did in its original comment to the Telegraph — that businesses should grit beyond their boundaries, making sure to carry out the task thoroughly.
Said Richard Jones: “As a general rule, it is sensible for firms to consider the risks and take reasonable steps to prevent accidents from happening. If this means gritting outside the boundaries of your workplace, then it’s better to do that than to have people slipping over, or involved in car crashes on your doorstep.”
Croner Consulting stressed that the advice it provided for SHP readers was a balanced opinion, given the legal requirements of workplace regulations and the duty of care under health and safety legislation and common law. A spokesperson for the company added: “We provided an informed view for an employer to choose a reasonable course of action. Clearly, employers will do what they feel is right to minimise risk to the public, and Croner will always advocate the exercise of good common sense. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that, in what has been dubbed Britain’s compensation culture, some actions may expose businesses to claims for damages.
“The recent media coverage that blames ‘health and safety regulations’ for the alleged reluctance of businesses to clear snow and ice from pathways in front of their premises is, in our view, misguided. The real issue is their reluctance to open themselves up to possible legal action.”
Director of communications at IOSH, Ruth Doyle, concluded: “The IOSH position is most definitely to encourage people to be good employers and neighbours by gritting icy areas and to emphasise that health and safety wants to help protect life and limb, not endanger it.”
