Personal Injury Law: Snow and Ice ~ A Slippery Subject

With weather forecasters threatening snow and ice over the next couple of weeks, now seems an appropriate time to consider the liabilities of a highway authority protecting the public against the risk of tripping and slipping. A highway authority’s responsibility to maintain highways is set out in section 41 Highways Act 1980:

“The authority who are for the time being the highway authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense are under a duty . . . . . .    to maintain the highway. In particular, a highway authority are under a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along the highway is not endangered by snow or ice”.

In an unreported matter of Genower v Transport For London (1) and Amey Plc (2) the Claimant pursued a claim against Transport for London in their capacity as highway authority and against Amey plc, who were contractors to Transport for London and who had been engaged to grit roads. One cold morning in January 2009, Mr Genower was riding his motorcycle under the Brent Cross flyover before joining the A41 when he skidded on a sheet of ice on the road, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle and he was injured.

Mr Genower pursued a claim against Transport for London under the Highways Act 1980. He alleged that the highway authority had breached its obligations under the legislation. He abandoned the claim in negligence at the beginning of the trial. He also pursued a claim against Amey Plc in negligence, asserting that they had failed to properly grit the road.

At trial the claim was dismissed against both Defendants. Whilst it was not denied that the Claimant’s motorcycle drove over an isolated patch of ice, the District Judge did not accept the allegations that the gritters had failed to do their job properly. The judge referred back to the matter of Pace v City and Council of Swansea, again an unreported case, and agreed with that judgement: 

“it is clearly impossible for a highways authority to eliminate all risk of ice forming on the road….. It is also impossible for …. plans to be devised so that the very greatest level of protection is always provided”.

The Court upheld that whilst it may be helpful in terms of protecting the public to place limitless amounts of salt on the road, to do so would be unrealistic, undesirably uneconomic and at a considerable cost to the environment. As long as the highway authority has devised a plan in accordance with best practice, uses sufficient quantities of salt to deal with foreseeable risks both efficiently and within manageable and sustainable constraints, the local authority will not be criticised.

In Genower, the judge held that Transport for London had an adequate policy for dealing with ice and snow and was satisfied that it had been properly implemented.  She also found that those gritters employed by Amey plc had done their job professionally and competently and asserted that they did not have a responsibility to ensure that every surface of every road was free of ice.

Ultimately, it follows that a local authority is only required to do what is “reasonably practicable” in accordance with its obligations under the Highways Act.

This is not to say that no claim for injuries caused by the presence of snow and ice will succeed. However, in certain circumstances, it is clear that the courts are not satisfied that blame must lie with the local authority.

Rowberry Morris has qualified lawyers dealing with a variety of personal injury matters. If you have had an accident within the last three years and you wish to enquire whether you have a potential claim, please contact Ian Beavon on 0118 958 5611 for a preliminary free initial discussion.

You are advised that generally a Claimant has only three years within which to settle a personal injury claim without recourse to the court.