Help! NCP Ice Accident

[green_and_mean]

So by your logic then any driver who skids on ice is not responsible for the damage they do and passes the blame to the owner of the land or the local council?

 

Yes if there has been negligence in failing to ensure the area is safe, as previously stated Councils liability is limited however NCP have a duty under the occupiers liability act.

So any driver who leaves his car parked in a street and then gets hit by another car then claims off the landowner or the Council and NOT the driver of the car???????

 

If the landowner/Council is to blame yes it is the person who causes the accident that is liable. If the driver hit a pot hole for example then hit your car ultimately the Council is responsible for all damage. If a brand new car was driving down the road and the wheel fell off causing the driver crash and kill your child who would you be better off taking action against...the driver or car manufacturer? Just because you are a car driver does not make you liable for everything.

 

Hey why stop at snow and ice, that will also by definition then apply to rain etc.

 

Yes if the Council did not clear the drains adequately and it caused surface water due to flooding they would be liable. They are not of course expected to mop up the rain as it falls only perform statutary duties.

 

I'm sorry G&M but you are wrong, the NCP have a valid claim against the driver of teh car that caused the damage, the case you cited does not apply in this instance (the OP hasn't suffered injuries he has caused damage to another person's property through his negligence)

 

Mossy

 

NCP have no claim whatsoever unless the OP was negligent ie was speeding or the car was not properly maintained. How can you possibly say ice is an act of god and then say the OP is liable using your original 'act of god' argument no one has a claim.

[Surfer01]

If I was leaving a covered car park for which I had paid good money to park, I certainly would not expect the exit to be iced up especially if the exit is still undercover. I would say that NCP have been neglect in their duty of care to a paying customer.

This is similar to signs in car parks which state that they are not responsible for any damage to your vehilce while parked in their garage. Any 1st year law student knows that you can still sue NCP if your car is damaged in one of their car parks no matter what an insurance company tells you.

[StrawDog]

A Very Happy (& accident free) Christmas to one & all.

Back with a response after Boxing Day.

 

Cheers!

[buzby]

Irrespective of the roof on the carpark, the same 1st Year Law student would also be aware the issue is NOT the ability to sue, but the reasonableness of actually suceeding in proving any negligence took place.

 

This is quite a different issue. You are trying to prove that ther terms are unfair, but they are the injured party here, it will take a great leap of faith for them to somehow be liable for the damage to someone's vehicle, due to a customers inexperience in handling a car that damages their property. It would also be reasonable to assume that should they raise an action for the costs of repair to the barrier, the issue of their terms and conditions would be not irrelevant to the damage and who caused it as the primary thrust of the claim.

Edited December 28, 2009 by buzby

[Al27]

This is all hypothetical until we know what, if any, action NCP will take.

[kwaks]

Hmmm, ice? Are we sure? Could this have been diesel?

 

I think it unlikely to have enough of a build up of ice to cause a slide/skid if the exit to the car park was under cover... however whether it was ice or diesel I would assume the same applies.

 

IF NCP were aware that there was a problem at the barriers with lack of traction, yet had done nothing to try to solve the problem, then they are liable.

 

As a colleague of the OP had also lost traction we know the problem was building/existing earlier in the day.

 

If a driver has reported this to staff, or indeed staff have witnessed it, then they are liable.

 

Now, I believe NCP car parks have 24 hr security. NCP have 24 hr CCTV. As the OP confirms CCTV moniters the exit. Therefor NCP must have known the traction problem was there as they will have witnessed cars sliding via cctv.

[louby_5]

Sorry to jump on the back of this post, i was trying to find answers to some questions i have and this forum was the closest and most useful I could find.

Here's the scenario - My husband slipped on the ice at 9.45pm last night in Tesco car park. He hadn't realised it was icy.It had been raining all day, the external temperature was 1 degree.

To add insult to injury, he was there to start his night shift, it was written in the accident book, and he completed his 8 hr shift in some degree of pain.

He had previously agreed to work additional hours tonight, but on finishing his shift has advised he will not be able to do it due to the pain, on which he has been told he will receive a disciplinary for not coming in. (although it is not his contracted hours).

Can this be correct? Is it truly an act of god, and any subsequent actions, loss of earnings etc just have to be accepted?

I would of thought that a supermarket would need to take reasonable precautions both for it's employee's and public?

[kwaks]

louby, do a new post in the employment section, you will get more relevant caggers responding.

[green_and_mean]

Sorry to jump on the back of this post, i was trying to find answers to some questions i have and this forum was the closest and most useful I could find.

Here's the scenario - My husband slipped on the ice at 9.45pm last night in Tesco car park. He hadn't realised it was icy.It had been raining all day, the external temperature was 1 degree.

To add insult to injury, he was there to start his night shift, it was written in the accident book, and he completed his 8 hr shift in some degree of pain.

He had previously agreed to work additional hours tonight, but on finishing his shift has advised he will not be able to do it due to the pain, on which he has been told he will receive a disciplinary for not coming in. (although it is not his contracted hours).

Can this be correct? Is it truly an act of god, and any subsequent actions, loss of earnings etc just have to be accepted?

I would of thought that a supermarket would need to take reasonable precautions both for it's employee's and public?

 

No Tesco are in breach of health and safety regs I doubt he is in a union but if he is they can give advice. DOROTHY ELIZABETH MUNRO v. ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL, 17 September 2009, Lord Malcolm is almost an identical case and the employer was found guilty. The key point of law is the The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

 

Maintenance of workplace, and of equipment, devices and systems

5.—(1) The workplace and the equipment, devices and systems to which this regulation applies shall be maintained (including cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

 

 

A visit to your GP is also advised to get the injury confirmed and find out if it is likely to cause any long term pain or discomfort.

Edited December 28, 2009 by green_and_mean

[Mossycat]

NCP have no claim whatsoever unless the OP was negligent ie was speeding or the car was not properly maintained. How can you possibly say ice is an act of god and then say the OP is liable using your original 'act of god' argument no one has a claim.

 

The ice was an act of God, that is why the OP will fail in their claim (if they try and make one) against NCP.

 

However, the damage caused to the barrier was a result of negligence on the part of the OP, that is why the NCP will succeed if they make a claim against the OP. The OP lost control of the car that they were in control of, that is negligence, pure and simple.

 

Mossy

[buzby]

Just come back from a long distance drive after spending Christmas away, and saw a similar incident at the exit from a Garden Centre CP at Bechin (no barrier). and the entire CP was like glass - but it was fairly evident to anyone using it that traction would be difficult. I watches as a motorist left with their sale goods and left to join the main road at a 'T' junction (and IMO a little too fast). She simply hit the brakes as she saw a car approaching (crossing R to L) and slalomed into it sideways.

 

The public road had been gritted, but her egress spin meant she could not stop the sideways movement and connected with the passing vehicle. Fortunately nobody was injured but both card has damage to their respective offside and nearside side panels. As I have an SD camera on the dash, I was able to show the sequence of events leading yp to the crash, and the police advised the car on the ice was being driven recklessly for the conditions. The woman protested that the fault was with the Garden Centre proprietors for not making the private road safe, but the police rejected this, stating that drivers are expected to have full control of their vehicles and the speed of her exist and ability to stop would have been compromised. A later chat with the store manager revealed that they clear all footpaths and walkways, but do not have the equipment to provide the same level of cover on the roads within. I got the impression their insurers agreed only to the footpath clearing, because if the roads were cleared ineffectively, then the liability increased, by NOT clearing them, they are not liable and the risk passes to the motorist.

 

In this state of compensation culture, it seems reasonable to pass the responsibility to those using the facility, especially when they could be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

[Mossycat]

Just come back from a long distance drive after spending Christmas away, and saw a similar incident at the exit from a Garden Centre CP at Bechin (no barrier). and the entire CP was like glass - but it was fairly evident to anyone using it that traction would be difficult. I watches as a motorist left with their sale goods and left to join the main road at a 'T' junction (and IMO a little too fast). She simply hit the brakes as she saw a car approaching (crossing R to L) and slalomed into it sideways.

 

The public road had been gritted, but her egress spin meant she could not stop the sideways movement and connected with the passing vehicle. Fortunately nobody was injured but both card has damage to their respective offside and nearside side panels. As I have an SD camera on the dash, I was able to show the sequence of events leading yp to the crash, and the police advised the car on the ice was being driven recklessly for the conditions. The woman protested that the fault was with the Garden Centre proprietors for not making the private road safe, but the police rejected this, stating that drivers are expected to have full control of their vehicles and the speed of her exist and ability to stop would have been compromised. A later chat with the store manager revealed that they clear all footpaths and walkways, but do not have the equipment to provide the same level of cover on the roads within. I got the impression their insurers agreed only to the footpath clearing, because if the roads were cleared ineffectively, then the liability increased, by NOT clearing them, they are not liable and the risk passes to the motorist.

 

In this state of compensation culture, it seems reasonable to pass the responsibility to those using the facility, especially when they could be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

 

Buzby you are totally spot on with this.

 

If our policyholders attempt to clear ice or snow and someone then falls or has an accident then because they have interfered with the snow fall they are therefore liable to ensure it is 100% clear and kept clear after that, if they do not make any attempt then the risk stays with the motorist.

 

Mossy

[StrawDog]

The ice was an act of God, that is why the OP will fail in their claim (if they try and make one) against NCP.

 

However, the damage caused to the barrier was a result of negligence on the part of the OP, that is why the NCP will succeed if they make a claim against the OP. The OP lost control of the car that they were in control of, that is negligence, pure and simple.

 

Mossy

 

In consideration of your distorted logic, I'm sure that anyone who has ever suffered a mishap in adverse weather conditions will be heartened to learn that they have first & foremost, pure & simple, been negligent (irrespective of whether damage has/has not been caused to third-party property as a result of that negligence (sic) ) - from the pedestrian who has slipped & fallen 'a' over 't' on an icy surface; the driver who is unable to control his vehicle at minimal speed to the pilot who has landed his plane & slid off an icy runway & maybe/or not demolished Farmer Giles' fence & ploughed up his field in the process.

 

You are very careless, unreasonable & judgemental with your continued liberal use of the term 'negligence' which you also appear to be confusing with the term 'liability' as if the two had the same meaning & were somehow interchangeable.

[green_and_mean]

Buzby you are totally spot on with this.

 

If our policyholders attempt to clear ice or snow and someone then falls or has an accident then because they have interfered with the snow fall they are therefore liable to ensure it is 100% clear and kept clear after that, if they do not make any attempt then the risk stays with the motorist.

 

Mossy

 

Rubbish 'act of god' is a cop out insurance companies try to use to avoid paying out, there is numerous case law regarding slipping on ice, wet leaves etc. The concept that you are only liable if you move the snow is a myth. Whilst it may work in claims on household insurance etc where its stuck in the small print but if there is a statutary duty to ensure safety act of god is not an exemption.

[buzby]

A pedestrian who has slipped has ONLY themselves to blame. They may attempt to involve a third party to SHARE in the blame, but at the end of the day they have neen negligent because (a) if the ground is slippy, they have either own senses to decide whether to proceed in that direction is safe, NOT carry on and attempt to find someone to blame when it goes wrong because they were so reckless.

 

I have a number of pairs of shoes, three of them would happily let me slide the entire length of the high street if frosty, but two other pairs will, with care, allow me to traverse the same terrain without difficulty. I choose the footwear that is most appropriate. Not bame anyone because I came ill-equipped.

 

What will be next? Suing Blackpool council because the tide came in too quickly when someone tried to walk to the waters edge at low tide and couldn't beat the incoming water? Or walking down the seafront in gale force winds, and deing swept away by a reckless and stupid act?

 

An 'Act of God' is more properly argued when lighning strikes, but for something that to any reasonable person has a risk element of injury or death and should be avoided is based on risk calculation. If the person who makes the decision to proceed does so, then they are liable for their own ill-informed actions.

 

Perhaps this is why were are stuck with ludicrous Health & Safety rules because certain people are so deficient in assessing personal risk thy need a 'nanny' equivalent to watch out for them when outwith their home. Even then they blow themselves up, or set themselves on fire. Not much chance of apportioning blame then is there, but they sure as heck will want to try.

[StrawDog]

Wow Buzby - as the result of your well thought out persuasive arguments & most reasoned logic I am rendered absolutely speechless - we may as well all just hibernate until the spring.

Edited December 28, 2009 by StrawDog
typpo

[buzby]

C'mon now - we need reasoned debate, not submission!

[StrawDog]

Believe me I'm trying, as no doubt Buzby, you are too.

[Mossycat]

In consideration of your distorted logic, I'm sure that anyone who has ever suffered a mishap in adverse weather conditions will be heartened to learn that they have first & foremost, pure & simple, been negligent (irrespective of whether damage has/has not been caused to third-party property as a result of that negligence (sic) ) - from the pedestrian who has slipped & fallen 'a' over 't' on an icy surface; the driver who is unable to control his vehicle at minimal speed to the pilot who has landed his plane & slid off an icy runway & maybe/or not demolished Farmer Giles' fence & ploughed up his field in the process.

 

You are very careless, unreasonable & judgemental with your continued liberal use of the term 'negligence' which you also appear to be confusing with the term 'liability' as if the two had the same meaning & were somehow interchangeable.

 

Then if we follow your distorted logic every single accident that occurs because of snow and ice is the fault of the land owner, so local councils are going to be busy then (NOT).

 

Unlike you I am fully aware of the difference between negligence and liability, the OP was both negligent and liable, had she not damaged the barrier then she would only have been negligent.

 

When it gets to name calling and insults it's time to withdraw from a thread because it's pointless to continue

 

End of

 

Mossy

[Poggers30]

Flippin heck..

 

I thought I'd add... I've heard nothing from them...also, the day after my skating accident they gritted the exit!!!! Hmmm they possible should have done this in the first place?!

 

Also it was def ice not diesel ....

 

Another point, if I didn't attempt to leave the car park I would have been there all night, its in a not so nice area, I wouldn't choose to sit there in the dark. As I also pointed out the exit goes down hill, i literally rolled over the top with my foot on the break...it just didn't stop. I can assure you I was not driving fast - infact I could walk quicker

[2ltr16valve]

Flippin heck..

 

I thought I'd add... I've heard nothing from them...also, the day after my skating accident they gritted the exit!!!! Hmmm they possible should have done this in the first place?!

 

Also it was def ice not diesel ....

 

Another point, if I didn't attempt to leave the car park I would have been there all night, its in a not so nice area, I wouldn't choose to sit there in the dark. As I also pointed out the exit goes down hill, i literally rolled over the top with my foot on the break...it just didn't stop. I can assure you I was not driving fast - infact I could walk quicker

 

 

I think logiclly you have done nothing wrong. Even at 1mph, if you go down hill on ice you will not stop ...!

The car park owners should of assessed the possibility of ice on the downward sloping exit and acted when the weather was adverse allowing ice.... I believe they should of raised the barrier...

 

I doubt very much that the car park owners/mgt would of accepted that the op could not leave the car park that evening due to ice.. thus waving the overnight fee !

 

Surely, the owners have a legal obligation to provide for people to come and go freely provided they have paid... by allowing the downwards sloping exit to ice over prevents people to leave freely... or at least in a safe manor... !

 

 

But then logic does not come into law often in the UK sadly !

 

Wishing you the best of luck for the new year.

[Mossycat]

Flippin heck..

 

 

Another point, if I didn't attempt to leave the car park I would have been there all night, its in a not so nice area, I wouldn't choose to sit there in the dark. As I also pointed out the exit goes down hill, i literally rolled over the top with my foot on the break...it just didn't stop. I can assure you I was not driving fast - infact I could walk quicker

 

Nobody accused you of driving fast, I said you were driving too fast for the weather conditions (ie there was ice and you lost control of your car).

 

You and you alone took the decision to try and exit the car park, again nobody is suggesting that you stay in the car park all night, what you should have done was contact NCP and tell them about your concerns and ask them to make the entry clear of ice, had you done that and they had refused then you might have had some claim against them, but as it stands you have none.

 

Mossy

[green_and_mean]

, what you should have done was contact NCP and tell them about your concerns and ask them to make the entry clear of ice,

 

I am off to work by train in the morning do you suggest I ring SWT to make sure the platform is not covered in ice causing me to fall on the tracks, the driver is qualified to drive and the train has had the relevant safety checks? It is not up to the consumer to check if the statutary requirements for safety are met it is down to the organisation involved. An 'act of god' is an unforseen occurence beyond ones control, you may be surprised to know ice can usually be expected in the middle of winter when the temperature is sub zero and therefore precautions taken.

[car2403]

I think there's sufficient discussion here for the OP to make up their own mind, based on the points put forward. It doesn't need to degenerate in to a bitch fight - each has had their say, so let's leave it like that and only post when we have some value to add.

 

[Mossycat]

I am off to work by train in the morning do you suggest I ring SWT to make sure the platform is not covered in ice causing me to fall on the tracks, the driver is qualified to drive and the train has had the relevant safety checks? It is not up to the consumer to check if the statutary requirements for safety are met it is down to the organisation involved. An 'act of god' is an unforseen occurence beyond ones control, you may be surprised to know ice can usually be expected in the middle of winter when the temperature is sub zero and therefore precautions taken.

 

Now you are just being silly.

 

An act of God is something that occurs naturally, storm tempest, and weather. They are termed act of God by Insurance Companies because no person or Company had a hand in putting them there or creating the hazard.

 

Clearing Ice is NOT a statutory requirement, however being qualified to drive a train is, so lets not confuse the issue by comparing apples with goats.

 

And as you so rightly state, ice can be expected in the middle of winter, the OP failed to appreciate, anticipate or drive accordingly and therefore caused damage.

 

A driver of a car has the ultimate responsibility to ensure it is driven safely, which on this occasion it wasn't, she lost control.

 

Mossy