If I clear the footpath outside my house....

JuliusCaesar

will it stay clear for more than 5 minutes?

No, actually, my query is the usual one, having got into an argument with a friend: could I be sued if it snows more, turns icey, and somebody breaks a leg on it?

Seriously, everyone seems to believe this, and it's stopping a lot of people clearing their paths (to the detriment of all pedestrians).

Sorry if it's been asked recently - I didn't see any.

hession.law

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

will it stay clear for more than 5 minutes?

No, actually, my query is the usual one, having got into an argument with a friend: could I be sued if it snows more, turns icey, and somebody breaks a leg on it?

Seriously, everyone seems to believe this, and it's stopping a lot of people clearing their paths (to the detriment of all pedestrians).

Sorry if it's been asked recently - I didn't see any.

i am not an expert on this but off the top of my head i think the position is this, if you do nothing you will not be liable however if you attempt to remove the snow and do a negligent job at it then you could be liable under the neighbour principle...

Lawstudent21

yes i agree if you do a bad job of it and someone slips then your showing that you were aware of the danger.

Paulw

According to the govt, no, you can't be sued.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/snow-clearers-cant-be-sued-2444225.html

Delancey

Paulw wrote: »

According to the govt, no, you can't be sued.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/snow-clearers-cant-be-sued-2444225.html

.....provided you do it properly....the risk remains alas.

Jo King

Most household insurance policies have personal liability cover. This should cover any claim. If in doubt check with the insurer.

WildOscar

delancey42 wrote: »

.....provided you do it properly....the risk remains alas.

how would you define properly. if you do the best you can and it looks fine to you but there is a small bit you did not see and someone falls on that what is the case then? Are you ok so long as you did the best you could
From link

In January Transport Minister Noel Dempsey said he was considering making people legally obliged to clear snow and ice from footpaths without incurring liability during severe weather.

that would be good idea because in the town centre people walk on the streets because of the state of the paths causing danger to themselves and motorists if the latter skid

It also says property owners is it different for residents who rent?

drkpower

Well, what Cowen said, presumably (hopefully!) quoting from the AG's advice was that 'If a pavement is cleared in a manner which disposes of snow so as not to create any obstacle or hazard, there is no issue of liability'.

So, in plain terms, if you move the snow and dont leave it in the way creating an obstacle or hazard (ie. a big step of snow that is begging to be tripped over), you cannot be sued.

If the newly cleared path accumulates more snow in the meantime, and that snow ices up, and someone falls, of course you cant be sued!! You didnt create that new snow.

If the newly cleared path is wet, as you would expect it to be following it being cleared, and then ices up and someone slips, of course you cant be sued!! If that were the case, I wouldnt be entitled to wash my car and let the water run-off into the drain, for fear that a cold spell overnight might cause the path to be icy...

The issue really has been scaremo9ngered to death. In the only sensible words of Brian Cowen in the past few years, 'Common sense prevails'.

hession.law

I wouldnt be entitled to wash my car and let the water run-off into the drain, for fear that a cold spell overnight might cause the path to be icy...

not entirely true you would be able to rise a nouvs actus interviens, however with the weather we have now there would be no doubt that the water would freeze and you would be liable

i would be of the opinion if you were to move the snow then you would need to keep it cleared if more snow builds up

i am familiar with the Occupiers Liability Act 95 which does deal with the duty/standard of care in such situation but as this is a public footpath what is this covered by? if there is any...

drkpower

hession.law wrote: »

not entirely true you would be able to rise a nouvs actus interviens, however with the weather we have now there would be no doubt that the water would freeze and you would be liable

I doubt it; if there is any case anyone is aware of where someone who wet the pathway outside their house was succesfully sued by an unfortunate passer-by after the water subsequently froze? Lets be honest, whatever our recent weeks weather, freezing conditions are very common in this country, as are car-washers, as are slip 'n trips, so it is very likely there would be numerous succesful claims if you were correct.

hession.law wrote: »

i would be of the opinion if you were to move the snow then you would need to keep it cleared if more snow builds up

Why?

PCPhoto

my understanding of what the government are saying is that :

if you clear an area (its the responsibility of the person who clears it to remove any potential hazards - ie. snow or ice which was originally there) ... failure to do this will leave the person open to legal action.

if you clear an area and more snow falls and freezes over - thats not an issue - as we cant control the weather....so the person who originally cleared an area cannot be blamed for future snow/ice falling.

in an ideal situation - everyone would be responsible for clearing the pathway in front of their house/business .....or the government would actually be productive for once and provide local councils with the necessary equipment and resources to do a proper job....it was only a week ago that they (the NRA) were saying commuters wont be affected too much - they had bought 80,000tonnes of grit in July ..... pity they waited till Wed/Thurs before they started using it.

Funfair

PCPhoto wrote: »

in an ideal situation - everyone would be responsible for clearing the pathway in front of their house/business ..

Was discussing this very issue last week before we got the snow with a mate living in Edmonton, Canada. They get snow regular and if you don’t clear the footpaths outside your own property you will be summoned. If after summons you still fail to clear it, they the Council will clear it for you and send you the bill.

JuliusCaesar

Thanks all. I'm right then The common good prevails.

I can see easily who amongst my neighbours is principled and community minded.


Me.

GeorgeH

Gosh, quite apart from the economic / political situation, can't help feeling we really should be worried about ourselves as a country when we have to concern ourselves with this sort of thing!

Delancey

drkpower wrote: »

The issue really has been scaremo9ngered to death. In the only sensible words of Brian Cowen in the past few years, 'Common sense prevails'.

When did we ever see ' Common Sense ' being applied to personal injury actions ?

Jo King

drkpower wrote: »

If the newly cleared path accumulates more snow in the meantime, and that snow ices up, and someone falls, of course you cant be sued!!

Of course you can be sued! The question is whether or not you have a good defence. Anybody clearing snow should ensure that they are insured against liability under the personal liability section of their house insurance. If there is a claim the insurer can take care of it. Having a good defence in itself is of little use if it means years of going through a court case against a litigant who is not a mark for costs.

drkpower

Jo King wrote: »

Of course you can be sued! The question is whether or not you have a good defence. Anybody clearing snow should ensure that they are insured against liability under the personal liability section of their house insurance. If there is a claim the insurer can take care of it. Having a good defence in itself is of little use if it means years of going through a court case against a litigant who is not a mark for costs.

Fair cop, bad phraseology!!;) 'Cannot be sued successfully' would perhaps have been more accurate.

But while insurance may cover it, people dont like to be sued, and it may have an impact on their premium, so the fact that insurance will 'cover it' may not be sufficient comfort for most.

Cicero

Does this pinciple apply to any type of work outside of the domain of your house..?

WildOscar

Jo King wrote: »

Of course you can be sued! The question is whether or not you have a good defence. Anybody clearing snow should ensure that they are insured against liability under the personal liability section of their house insurance. If there is a claim the insurer can take care of it. Having a good defence in itself is of little use if it means years of going through a court case against a litigant who is not a mark for costs.

so does that mean we should not do it if not insured?

Empire o de Sun

I live in Germany, I know not popular with some and the banking bailout,

but in regards to snow, it law that you have to clear the snow from the footpath in front of your house. If you don't, you can get fined. If someone falls and you haven't cleaned it, you can get sued.

Mark27

Our lecturer/barrister told us only a few nights ago that it is very highly unlikely that a judge would award against someone for this.

Social Policy prevents the public making a mass of claims against the government for the icy roads on the roads/pavements. That is, if one person was to be awarded then the floodgates would open. Id say you would be fine

seamus

In my mind it comes down to simple nonfeasance/misfeasance.

The councils cannot be sued for icy roads and paths because that's nonfeasance. And in tort law you cannot be held liable for damages arising out of inaction.

However, poorly clearing the paths of ice; misfeasance, (e.g. using boiling water to clear snow which then freezes into sheet ice) is an action which may lead directly to damages, and therefore leaves you open to being sued.

According to wiki, misfeasance is mostly used in conjunction with claims against councils and the like, so I would say that your lecturer is right and no judge would find against someone who was only attempting to perform a civic niceity by clearing the path.

In the case of ice, I would also imagine that a certain amount of personal caution would be factored in too and someone could not reasonably expect to walk without a care on a "cleared" path, given the weather conditions.

Manach

I'm curious about the German law, Empire o de Sun mentioned, if during the cleaning of the snow one slips, thus could their equivalent of the local council be liable to the householder.

to99

I spent three and a half hours clearing the driveway and the pavement in front of my house and making sure that the cleared snow/ice did not cause any kind of obstruction to passers by....only to drive down the road to find the local Church handyman clearing snow off the pavement and quite literally dumping it right onto the middle of the road, not at the side, genuinely onto the middle of the road.

WildOscar

seamus wrote: »

In my mind it comes down to simple nonfeasance/misfeasance.

The councils cannot be sued for icy roads and paths because that's nonfeasance. And in tort law you cannot be held liable for damages arising out of inaction.

However, poorly clearing the paths of ice; misfeasance, (e.g. using boiling water to clear snow which then freezes into sheet ice) is an action which may lead directly to damages, and therefore leaves you open to being sued.

According to wiki, misfeasance is mostly used in conjunction with claims against councils and the like, so I would say that your lecturer is right and no judge would find against someone who was only attempting to perform a civic niceity by clearing the path.

In the case of ice, I would also imagine that a certain amount of personal caution would be factored in too and someone could not reasonably expect to walk without a care on a "cleared" path, given the weather conditions.

what if you put up a sign to say "be careful path may be slippy"ther eis just a little ice out side my house now and if i did it i would use something like a spade to lift it off then brush the path off and as far as poss make sure it was not slippy, but if kids who cannot read fell...

PCPhoto

in summary: (my understanding)

- if you do nothing .... you have a slippy entrance to your home (and cant be sued)

- if you clear it and don't do a good job (you are open to being sued*)

- if you clear it and do a fantastic job (you are still open to being sued*)

* the success of the person taking legal action against you all depends on the circumstances of the fall.

WildOscar

PCPhoto wrote: »

- if you do nothing .... you have a slippy entrance to your home (and cant be sued)

.

might be more slippy but safer;)

metrovelvet

If you fall and get an injury because someone HASNT cleared the ice cant you sue for negligence?

t

PCPhoto

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you fall and get an injury because someone HASNT cleared the ice cant you sue for negligence?

t

no

a person is not responsible for the pathway outside their home - that is the councils responsibility.....in the same way that someone is not tresspassing until they enter your driveway.

kippy

Like a another recent topic in the legal discussion forum I had a look at, the whole concept of this particular situation is a complete joke and a large part of one of the reasons why certain legal items in this country are over taking common sense and goodness.

As some have already stated and this is similar to a lot of cases of people/businesses being sued these days, no matter what you do to the driveway or path outside your hours there is a massive level of personal responsibility attached to the person who decides (against ALL of the advice given by the met office, the Gardai and many other agencies) to go out and walk on the driveways and pathways of the country.
Not only have they gone against the advice of the authorities, they have also most likely not worn the appropriate footwear for the conditions.

I dont see how or why the person who attempted to make the path more passable should be sued but I do see why they get sued. Mainly due to lax laws and regulations and a number of people, both legal and individuals who feel they have no blame in the situation.

I am not sure if there is any history of cases such as this in the state but the very fact that this is even up for discussion epitomises how much of a nanny state we have become and how close to the US systems of claims we are.

metrovelvet

Well Im clearing my path and I dont give a crap if someone tries to sue me for it. Let them. I'd rather that than someone get seriously injured.

Dont compare Ireland to the US because you are required to clear your entrances on your property. Landlords are required to clear the paths on rental property. THe county managers are required to clear the paths on public footpaths. Required by LAW to do so and this is how it should be.

kippy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well Im clearing my path and I dont give a crap if someone tries to sue me for it. Let them. I'd rather that than someone get seriously injured.

Dont compare Ireland to the US because you are required to clear your entrances on your property. Landlords are required to clear the paths on rental property. THe county managers are required to clear the paths on public footpaths. Required by LAW to do so and this is how it should be.

Comparing Ireland to the US in terms of the changing attitude towards blaming someone else - not specifically on this issue.

metrovelvet

Honestly, I think people are using fear of litigation as an excuse to be lazy.

seamus

what if you put up a sign to say "be careful path may be slippy"

Possibly could be construed in the same way as "beware of the dog". That is, by putting the sign up you are implicitly taking responsibility for the condition of the path and could be sued even if you haven't attempted to clear it.
It's a sad state of affairs that having a civic conscience can land you in more trouble than simply ignoring the existence of other people, but unfortunately these are the outdated and manipulated laws that we're stuck with.

If you fall and get an injury because someone HASNT cleared the ice cant you sue for negligence?

No. You cannot be sued for *not* doing something, unless you have been contracted to do it. So if I see someone having a heart attack on the side of the road and I decide to continue walking, I cannot be sued - because I haven't done anything to cause any damages. I haven't acted to prevent damages, but that doesn't mean they're my fault in the first place.
On the other hand, if I stop and start chest compressions, but it turns out to be a simple angina attack or indigestion, then I can be sued for the damage I will have done to the man's ribcage, even though I was only trying to do the right thing.
The laws are lacking in this regard, but it's something which needs to be legislated very carefully. Inaction should not be a crime, but we do need to protect people who act in the public's general or specific interests and make a mistake.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Honestly, I think people are using fear of litigation as an excuse to be lazy.

I don't think so.

I was walking the dog the other night, and one of my neighbours' door is off the main road a little, up a path. So he had cleared a path between from his door to the road so he could get out to the cars. It was slippy at one point, and the first thing that went through my head (I'm at pains to admit) was, "If I fall, it's his fault".
Now, given the time to think about it, if I'd fallen and broken my arm I would have just taken it on the chin.
But many others wouldn't think like that. If you had no medical insurance and racked up a few hundred euros in medical bills, as well as the cost of being off work and the hassle of a broken arm for 6 weeks, you can easily see how a person would look to get compensated for that.

We're very slow to accept blame for our own mistakes here (and in the UK). Ads for the likes of injurylawyers4u and the general tone of, "It's someone else's fault I walked up an unsafe ladder" goes to show that we tend to transfer responsibility for our losses onto someone else if we can.

I don't think it's as big a deal in an estate setting which isn't used as a through-way. Neighbours would be slower to sue eachother and would generally be aware of the conditions, regardless of whether the path is cleared. But if you have a path on a main road or used as a through way for people to walk, you're much more likely to have a random anonymous person sue you for an injury.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote: »

Possibly could be construed in the same way as "beware of the dog". That is, by putting the sign up you are implicitly taking responsibility for the condition of the path and could be sued even if you haven't attempted to clear it.
It's a sad state of affairs that having a civic conscience can land you in more trouble than simply ignoring the existence of other people, but unfortunately these are the outdated and manipulated laws that we're stuck with.
No. You cannot be sued for *not* doing something, unless you have been contracted to do it. So if I see someone having a heart attack on the side of the road and I decide to continue walking, I cannot be sued - because I haven't done anything to cause any damages. I haven't acted to prevent damages, but that doesn't mean they're my fault in the first place.
On the other hand, if I stop and start chest compressions, but it turns out to be a simple angina attack or indigestion, then I can be sued for the damage I will have done to the man's ribcage, even though I was only trying to do the right thing.
The laws are lacking in this regard, but it's something which needs to be legislated very carefully. Inaction should not be a crime, but we do need to protect people who act in the public's general or specific interests and make a mistake.
I don't think so.

I was walking the dog the other night, and one of my neighbours' door is off the main road a little, up a path. So he had cleared a path between from his door to the road so he could get out to the cars. It was slippy at one point, and the first thing that went through my head (I'm at pains to admit) was, "If I fall, it's his fault".
Now, given the time to think about it, if I'd fallen and broken my arm I would have just taken it on the chin.
But many others wouldn't think like that. If you had no medical insurance and racked up a few hundred euros in medical bills, as well as the cost of being off work and the hassle of a broken arm for 6 weeks, you can easily see how a person would look to get compensated for that.

We're very slow to accept blame for our own mistakes here (and in the UK). Ads for the likes of injurylawyers4u and the general tone of, "It's someone else's fault I walked up an unsafe ladder" goes to show that we tend to transfer responsibility for our losses onto someone else if we can.

I don't think it's as big a deal in an estate setting which isn't used as a through-way. Neighbours would be slower to sue eachother and would generally be aware of the conditions, regardless of whether the path is cleared. But if you have a path on a main road or used as a through way for people to walk, you're much more likely to have a random anonymous person sue you for an injury.

How would you prove he did anything to the path in the first place?

You should be able to be sued for NOT clearing your path.

You can get a ticket for NOT OBEYING a red light ffs.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote: »

How would you prove he did anything to the path in the first place?

"Did you clear this path?"
"Yes I did"
Balance of probabilities too. If the council didn't do, then who else would? You could deny it to the hilt, but if you're the only person who could possibly have cleared that path, then it's likely that your denials will be unheeded IMO.

You should be able to be sued for NOT clearing your path.

You can get a ticket for NOT OBEYING a red light ffs.

Two entirely different areas of law, however not obeying a red light is an action. Not clearing a path is not an action, it's an inaction.
Your problem here is that you would be opening the floodgates for a massive range of things. If I can sue you for not clearing the path in front of your house, then I can also sue you for not clearing the path in front of your neighbours' houses and in front my house.

The path outside your home is (usually) public property, therefore it does not fall inside your responsibility. Making it your responsibility would be as absurd as making it a legal requirement for members of the public to replace a bulb in a broken streetlight.
As I said in another thread, if it legally becomes my responsibility to clear the path outside my home, then I should equally be legally entitled to use that path for private purposes - parking, barbecues, etc.

I do entirely realise that sounds like a "not my responsibility - not my problem" cop-out, but legally compelling people to perform civic duties (i.e. ones which should be performed by a local authority) carries all sorts of other potential problems.
For example, if I'm legally compelled to clear the snow outside my home and I put my back out, can I sue the state for my injuries? Possibly, but it's an issue.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

I don't think so.

I think Metro is spot on, to be honest. While there is always a chance that someone who makes a reasonable effort to clear their pathway might be succesfully sued, it is incredibly unlikely. That seems to be the advice of the AG, im not aware of any similar cases in the past (and we have had snow before.....!), and it would be a decision that would fly in the face of public policy considerations. So, the miniscule risk of being succesfully sued is surely outweighed by the civic duty of leaving a clear stretch in front of your house. While it obviously doesnt make the pathway 100% safe, it is at best, far safer than the compacted icy snow on the rest of the pathway, and is, at worst, an option for some pedestrians who prefer to walk on the cleared area.

Of course, if you clear the area and make a hash of it by leaving a 2 foot high pile of snow & ice on trhe pathway, and someone trips over it, i have no sympathy for your stupidity. But most people have no difficulty in doung a reasonable job of clearing a strip of pathway without leaving major obstacles in the way.

seamus wrote: »

No. You cannot be sued for *not* doing something, unless you have been contracted to do it. .

......or if you have a duty to do it (ie. in some cases, a doctor who has no contractual relationship with a patient may be obliged to lend medical assistance).

And while it may be unlikely in this type of case, I wonder if a court could declare that a householder has a duty to take reasonable steps to clear their property of obvious dangers (ie.snow/ice) even if they did not put the danger there themselves. There is about as much risk of that, as there is of a court imposing liability on a householder who did a reasonable job of clearing his driveway.

WildOscar

seamus wrote: »

The path outside your home is (usually) public property, therefore it does not fall inside your responsibility.
.

it does for litter regardless of who left it there

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

I think Metro is spot on, to be honest

Well, we'll agree to disagree - though I do agree to a certain extent that plenty of people who wouldn't clear the path anyway will use it as the reason why they're not doing.

it does for litter regardless of who left it there

Source?

WildOscar

seamus wrote: »

Source?

litter warden.

seamus

WildOscar wrote: »

litter warden.

I mean what statutes or by-laws does it fall under or do you have a link to any case law backing up the idea that litter outside someone's house is their responsibility?

First time I've ever heard of it. What the litter warden tells you and what the legal reality is are two different things altogether.

Victor

So, imagine Tom owns a building with a number of large roofs. Snow and ice build up of a period of time. Suddenly, some of the snow slides off an upper section of the roof and falls on a lower section, causing a small avalanche, which overloads the gutter, which crashes to the ground, seriously injuring Dick.

Advise Tom and Dick.

What if only snow and ice fell and not the gutter?

What if the initial snow movment had been caused by Harry, a roofer employed by Tom to carry out tiling repairs.

Manach wrote: »

I'm curious about the German law, Empire o de Sun mentioned, if during the cleaning of the snow one slips, thus could their equivalent of the local council be liable to the householder.

No, I doubt it, you are merely doing what everyone else is required to do.

Bad example, but, if when paying your taxes, your bank account was raided, would you sue the Revenue.

seamus wrote: »

I mean what statutes or by-laws does it fall under or do you have a link to any case law backing up the idea that litter outside someone's house is their responsibility?

First time I've ever heard of it. What the litter warden tells you and what the legal reality is are two different things altogether.

AFAIK Dublin City Council made a bye-law obliging retail outlets to keep the front of their premises clean.

rubadub

seamus wrote: »

"Did you clear this path?"
"Yes I did"
Balance of probabilities too. If the council didn't do, then who else would?

A neighbour might do it, as described in other threads, people helping elderly neighbours -they might dump cold water down and make it more hazardous.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/snow-clearers-cant-be-sued-2444225.html

In January Transport Minister Noel Dempsey said he was considering making people legally obliged to clear snow and ice from footpaths without incurring liability during severe weather.

How does this actually work in other countries, if you are away on holidays could you be sued. If an elderly or disabled person has a monstrous amount of snow to clear are they expected to do it or pay a person to. The outside of my elderly relatives house in the country is massive, it would take a team of guys several hours to clear it, for the 2-3 people who might actually walk that way. Its all well and good for Cowen to say "So common sense prevails." -how would/is this common sense be written into law.

Victor

rubadub wrote: »

The outside of my elderly relatives house in the country is massive,

Mr. Swing, please meet Mr. Roundabout.

rubadub

Found this
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000656/M00004466/AI00014305/$WinterMaintenancedraftreport.docA.ps.pdf

Case Study 18
In Minneapolis, United States, it's your legal duty to clear the pavement of snow within 24 hours of snowfall ending. Residents are given free “sidewalk (pavement) sand” to do the job.
"Keeping our sidewalks free of ice and snow is the neighbourly thing to do, and it's the law... please do your part," says the local authority's website.

If the public works department gets a complaint or discovers that a pavement is not properly cleared, it gives the property owner a chance to do it. If the pavement has still not been cleared upon reinspection, city crews will do the job and the home owner will be sent the bill.

I wouldn't fancy that bill here, I know a guy who does gritting, they get paid ludicrous amounts, he actually moans about it himself.


UK

41. The legal position as set out by the Ministry of Justice is as follows:
“A snow-clearer does have the duty to anyone who passes along the pavement to do the clearing with reasonable care so as not to create a new or worse risk, but the only person who is at risk of being sued is a person who clears the snow so badly that things are worse than before and that common sense would indicate this was so… If a person clears snow with a shovel and a brush and leaves the pavement clear, it is very difficult to see how a claim could be launched with any prospect of success.”6

42. This guidance shows that the public, provided common sense is used, is able to clear pavements without fear of being held liable for any accidents which may occur.

43. Such an approach is supported by a press release issued by Westminster City Council in January 2010 that encouraged local people to clear ice and snow in order to keep London moving. The following four self-help tips, supported by legal advice, were circulated through the media to residents:
1. DO NOT USE HOT WATER. This will melt the slow, but will replace it with black ice, increasing the risk of injury.
2. If shovelling snow:
• Use a shovel with the widest blade available
• Make a line down the middle of your path first, so you have a safe surface to walk on. Then you can simply shovel the snow from the centre to the sides.
3. Spread some ordinary table salt on the area you have cleared to prevent any ice forming. Ordinary salt will work and can be purchased cheaply from any local shop, but avoid spreading on plants or grass.
4. Use the sun to your advantage. Simply removing the top layer of snow will allow the sun to melt any ice beneath, however you will need to cover any ice with salt to stop refreezing overnight." 7