Employers car park - liability for damage / H&S?

[dj_ten4]

Hi everyone. I've just joined the forum in the hope that someone with the correct knowledge or experience can advise me on an issue regarding employer liability in a company car park. I noticed that there is a parking/traffic offences are of the forum , but this seem more suitable - admins, feel free to move the topic of course!

 

I am employed at a local college within IT. The campus is large with it's own car park which is shared between both staff and students. I do not know the actual figures, but this campus (one of 4) must easily have over a thousand people on-site during the day, including staff and students.

 

On Friday just gone (Dec 5th) I arrived at work at 8:30am. The weather in my region has been particularly cold and icey in the mornings this past week. There is a spot in the car park where I commonly park and as usual I drove up to this point to park up. As I turned into the parking space my car slid on ice, carrying straight forward into the corner edge of a skip. The results are below:

 

 

The crash was witnessed by a site security guard and a few other heads were turned, although in the moments afterwards I didn't think to take down names. One person who approached me was one of the estates staff, who after asking if I was ok made an unprompted comment about the car park bot being gritted simply because it's "too big for 2 men to do.". A minute after this another colleague arrived who told me she had suffered similar just 2 days early - she hit a small tree after sliding, causing this:

 

 

In the few hours after this happened my employer seemed to go to lengths to make a point of denying all and any liability, culminating with this email:

 

"Dear colleagues

 

You are reminded that when driving on college premises that you should not exceed the on campus speed limit of 5 miles an hour. You should take extra care when you believe there may be ice around.

 

Car users bring their cars onto our campuses at their own risk.

 

The college regularly salts pedestrian routes."

 

So, what I'm obviously wondering is, do I have a leg to stand on if I try to claim against them? Does the college have an obligation to make their car park safe for it's users, particularly since these are not just staff members but students too (whom we have a car of duty towards), and would this encompass gritting the car park in bad weather? I have never noticed a sign if there is one stating their liability in the car park, but even if there is one would it stand up legally? Am I agreeing to something like that as soon as I drive onto the premises? Would this stand as a health and safety issue which they have responsibility for? Afterall, even if we drive in 'at our own risk' what would they do if a staff member or student got out of a car, slipped, and broke a leg?!

 

Another point of note is the issue of the speed limit. The email sent out is in my view nothing short of ignorant in it's assumption that my accident and any other (including the one 2 days prior to mine) indicates we were obviously not driving safely. However I do not know what speed I was doing. I was certainly not flying along - I was driving at a careful speed as normal for a car park as you pull into a space. But I suspect I was travelling at 5 - 10 mph. Would this go against me? Neither of us can prove what speed I was doing, but I filled out an incident report straight afterwards and put that I was doing 5-10mph as an estimate. In terms of the damage, the car has been checked and is safe and sound - the damage has not touched the frame or engine and is purely cosmetic, although it comes close to the value of the car to repair. I wasn't thrown at all in the impact, the car literally just crumpled up. So considering I hit a solid skip full of junk, would that go in support of the fact I wasn't driving fast?

 

I know there are a lot of questions but if anyone can help I would really very much appreciate it. The other person who had a bump also wishes to take action, and other people have since told me they have slid on the ice. My employers attitude seems to be to be in total disregard for staff and the young students who use the area every day. The skip I hit could easily have been another car or a person. Then of course there's the issue of waliking from a car to the doors on the ice and the risk involved.

 

I'm really very let down and confused. :-?

[elche]

Hi dj

 

I'm happy for any of this advice to be corrected, I'm no expert on Tort or Contractual Liability, and I think there could be issues in tort and contract here.

 

Obviously you need to look at the the OLA 1957.

 

Occupiers' Liability – What does it all mean? :: Personal Injury Compensation Related Articles

 

You would need to prove that the employer (he):

 

a)He is aware of the danger. - ice should be common knowledge

b)He knows/has reasonable ground to believe that the person is in the vicinity of the danger - he knows staff use the car park

c)He should be reasonably expected to offer the person some protection - was any of the car park gritted and just this section missed or was it not gritted at all?

 

What I do know is that if I were the employer, i would probably argue that you were doing more than 5 mph, and to prove this I'd obtain an expert engineers report on the car to prove this (cost about £150). Also i would want to know if anyone else had problems? If not, why not?

 

Che

[dx100uk]

if your college is a private corperation, then there is no comeback fullstop.

 

if the college [or the ground the carpark is situated on] is LEA or CC owned, then they have a duty of care [the LEA or the CC that is] & the college [by the nature of their tenancy,] should be adressing this.

 

if the college is a corperation, then the only duty they have is to the footpaths on their private grounds [as said 'a duty of care']. if they wish to salf the car park, then thats nice of them, but i bet cost comes into it too.

 

this does not extend to the carpark. & they do not 'have' to display such signs as 'we accept no etc etc' as suggested + they prob did & if my college is like yours, the little darling tear them down anyway.

 

and again, not being funny, but you already indicate to knowing of bad weather conditions & it is obvious the skips have been there [permanant place they have always been?] on numerous occassions you have parked too. also looking at the photos, there is no slope or camber, and i am suprised to the damage done at such a slow speed?

 

you are in control of your car, you should drive with 'due care and attention' to the conditions.

 

and yes i am a caretaker at a simular establishment.

 

sorry

 

dx

Edited December 7, 2008 by dx100uk
typo

[elche]

if your college is a private corperation, then there is no comeback fullstop.

 

The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 will apply to any 'occupier of land' be that a private or public body.

 

I'm not saying you've got a good claim, but I believe it would apply.

 

Hope this helps

 

Che

[dj_ten4]

Elche - Thank you very much for that. I'll have a look through the link you've posted, but can I ask, do you know any of this from a professional point of view or is it opinion? I appreciate the help, and I guess I'll need to get professional advice anyway if I really want to go down that route. One thing I'm unsure of is where this sort of incident would sit with regards to any legislation covering damage to property or health and safety. Would it fall under one and not the other?

 

In answer to your points:

 

a)He is aware of the danger. - ice should be common knowledge Yes, but I guess that argument applies on both sides?

b)He knows/has reasonable ground to believe that the person is in the vicinity of the danger - he knows staff use the car park Yes, as mentioned elaborated on below with regard to students using it too.

c)He should be reasonably expected to offer the person some protection - was any of the car park gritted and just this section missed or was it not gritted at all? None of the car park is gritted.

 

 

dx - Thanks. I appreciate your input since I'm not simply looking for people to tell me what I want to hear and I obviously need a better idea of where I stand, good or bad. In response to some of your comments though...

 

if your college is a private corperation, then there is no comeback fullstop.

 

It's a private organisation. It isn't LEA managed. So maybe that's all there is to it. But it still leaves me wondering what the outcome would be if either a staff member or, even worse perhaps, a student slipped and was injured. Afterall, we're constantly informed of oour duty of care. It was that circumstance that made me wonder if the college had more liability than if it was simply a staff car park.

 

not being funny, but you already indicate to knowing of bad weather conditions & it is obvious the skips have been there [permanant place they have always been?] on numerous occassions you have parked too.

 

Yes, there was bad weather. But I somehow made the 10+ mile journey beforehand from a rural village, down a winding country road through farm land, on similar icey roads. I knew it was icey, but my argument is that I was travelling at a safe manner as I pulled into the space. I'm not the only person to have slid, and I'm so far one of 2 who have hit objects. This is in 1 week of icey weather. And my employers attitude seems to be 'nothing to do with us'. If that's the attitude they take it's not going to be long before someone gets hurt, and then what? As mentioned, there is a speed limit of 5mph. I can't say what I was doing, I didn't check as i pulled in. To my own detriment I suspect I was doing 5-10mph, but it could have been 5. Regardless, even at 5mph, in those conditions, someone could and may well still slide and hit another car, object, or person.

 

looking at the photos, there is no slope or camber, and i am suprised to the damage done at such a slow speed?

 

you are in control of your car, you should drive with 'due care and attention' to the conditions.

 

Nope, there isn't slope. I approached the space thropugh the then practically empty car park at an angle of roughly 135 degrees. As mentioned in the first post, I immediately took the car to be checked over. It's been deemed safe by 2 places. It starts up and performs as it always has. The impact didn't even get as far as the engine - that surely has to say something about how fast I was traveling considering I hit a heavy skip, and remember, I also hit it on an edge meaning all of the force of the impact was focussed there and not spread out. I also wasn't even shaken in my seat. The front end literally just crumpled up. The car is rare though (Toyota Paseo Si), so the repair and parts would come to around £600 (quoted so far), equalling nearly the value of the car.

 

I guess the bigger question is whether or not there is a duty of care or liability spanning out to the car park and if this would be a H&S issue. Which ever way that stands, I can understand, would be the be all and end all of the issue, regardless of my opinions and thoughts. Because of the age and value of the car I'm reluctant to take it through a claim if I'm likely to lose and then have it effect things like no claims bonus. Aside from that, as I've already said, I'm feeling pretty livid at the attitude and assumptions being made by my employer.

Edited December 7, 2008 by dj_ten4
typo

[dj_ten4]

Hi dj

 

Obviously you need to look at the the OLA 1957.

 

Occupiers' Liability – What does it all mean? :: Personal Injury Compensation Related Articles

 

 

Just had a look over this, and it looks very interesting I'm going to cvheck through it more thoroughly and see what I can do about getting professional advice I think. I don't know if that legislation would actually apply to me since there was no injury and it's more a matter of cost, but given the circumstances and the users of the are (as mentioned above) I think it could be relevant. Thanks a lot.

[elche]

dj

 

I sent you a PM in answer to your question

 

Che

[Zamzara]

I'm not an expert but my view is it would be hard to show that the employer was negligent.

 

I don't think the 5mph speed limit is itself crucial (since driving a car at walking speed is not really a reasonable request unless traffic conditions require it). The problem is that it is still the driver's responsibility to keep the car under control and be aware of the conditions.

[elche]

I don't know if that legislation would actually apply to me since there was no injury and it's more a matter of cost

 

I do agree you need to check if the OLA will apply to injured party who is only claiming financial loss e.g. special damages only no general damages claim.

 

I personally think the OLA would apply. And in any event, if there needs to be an index accident causing PI for it to 'kick in', then all you need to say is that you suffered a soft tissue injury e.g. whiplash and there you go.

 

I personally know client's who put whiplash claims in when the only damage to their car was a cracked number plate! ; and the damage to yours looks much worse.

 

BTW, I nearly bought a Toyota Paseo a few years back - are they any good?

 

Che

[elche]

The problem is that it is still the driver's responsibility to keep the car under control and be aware of the conditions.

 

I agree - and I think this could well defeat any claim - i.e. the defendant was prima facia liable for gritting the car park BUT the claimant's driving was so negligent as to be contributory negligent of 100%

 

Thus whilst you may prove negligence, your level of CD wipes out any award.

 

Che

[dx100uk]

thanks for the reply and i'm really glad you took it in the spirit it was written.

 

from what you are saying then i feel there is little you can carp about.

your est appears to mirror ours [and many others].

 

also i know it 'adds weight' but 'just because' the colleges clientelle inc students, use the car park, it is a carpark, there are diff rules concerning this, as opposed to the grounds themselves. so that will not change things, other than on moral grounds.

 

again, not being funny, but ours went this way during the thatcher 'privatisation' of FE colleges, you will find there is no recourse.

 

we have even had staff cars damaged by 'racing' students, the outcome was 'toughluck' claim on yours insurance or theirs if you know who it was.

 

now, one tip, is the carpark barrier controlled or is it at anypoint during the year closed by a gate and locked, if it is not, then it is part of the public highway [and its rules/upkeep] and cannot be deemed as private.

 

one of our staff cars that got dented by another member of the public shopping! and using the park, iy was not gated and never had been, she got compensation. exact details i am not a party too, that was 1997.

 

dx

Edited December 7, 2008 by dx100uk

[Conniff]

There is also the other side in that if you kick up a fuss and they have to pay out, they could close the carpark. They are under no obligation to provide parking space.