TheDon Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If everyone would just clear the pavement outside their house it'd all be fine. The roads are fine now, but the pavements are still dire to walk on.There's some US states were it's a legal requirement to clear the pavement outside your house, we should make it the same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not a good idea.... If you clear a path you can get sued if someone falls. Sounds daft I know but I know Head Teachers who tell their caretakers not to clear paths as by doing so you are taking responsibility and in doing so telling people it is safe. I know it is beyond reason but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Don't worry rain is coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not a good idea.... If you clear a path you can get sued if someone falls. Sounds daft I know but I know Head Teachers who tell their caretakers not to clear paths as by doing so you are taking responsibility and in doing so telling people it is safe. I know it is beyond reason but there you go.They'd have to prove you acted maliciously to have a claim.Plus, that's under current law. If it was made so you had to, you couldn't then be sued for doing it.Incidentally you could currently get sued by someone for not clearing your own path. You have a duty to ensure people on your property are safe, so if the postman takes a slip on your uncleared path he can sue you too (as can anyone else with a reason for visiting your front door). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2013 They'd have to prove you acted maliciously to have a claim. Seemingly not as schools have been successfully sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Seemingly not as schools have been successfully sued.I'd have thought that they were successfully sued because they didn't do it properly; they did it incompetently or negligently, or they made it worse than it was beforehand.I can see that taking responsibility for clearing an area for which you would otherwise have no responsibility may make you liable (if you cock up and make it more hazardous, for instance) whereas before, when you weren't responsible for it, you couldn't be liable.I'd be very doubtful that this can be reversed and interpreted by those with responsibility for a specific area (people, businesses, schools and so on) so that they decide not to do anything, i.e. fail to act reasonably to prevent accidents.Edit: Surely the Occupiers Liability Act confers upon all of us the duty to do that where we are the occupier (e.g. as TheDon says - your own path on your own property)? Edited January 25, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'd have thought that they were successfully sued because they didn't do it properly; they did it incompetently or negligently, or they made it worse than it was beforehand.I can see that taking responsibility for clearing an area for which you would otherwise have no responsibility may make you liable (if you cock up and make it more hazardous, for instance) whereas before, when you weren't responsible for it, you couldn't be liable.I'd be very doubtful that this can be reversed and interpreted by those with responsibility for a specific area (people, businesses, schools and so on) so that they decide not to do anything, i.e. fail to act reasonably to prevent accidents.Edit: Surely the Occupiers Liability Act confers upon all of us the duty to do that where we are the occupier (e.g. as TheDon says - your own path on your own property)?This BBC article seems to agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It is people who 'clear snow' by pouring hot water onto the pavment (which then freezes over to an ice slick) which is the problem. Not people scraping a path and putting salt or grit down. You don't get sued for clearing away snow, you can be sued for making a total **** up of the pavement and causing a hazard for other people though, and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I've never been so happy to see rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 There's some US states were it's a legal requirement to clear the pavement outside your house, we should make it the same here.Absolutely infuriating bullshit (with all due respect). If I OWN the pavement outside my house THEN it's my duty. If I don't own it then it's the duty of whoever DOES own it; usually the council.People usually have absolutely zero right to do anything to the pavement outside their house (modify etc), so they sure as **** should not be made responsible for maintaining something they've no right to. Do not make it mandatory and legal for the onus to be on someone to do something TO something they DON'T OWN. If someone WANTS to do it, then fine. But the notion that they should be somehow held accountable for a piece of property that they have no legal hold over is **** infuriating. Utter madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted January 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25, 2013 Absolutely infuriating bullshit (with all due respect). If I OWN the pavement outside my house THEN it's my duty. If I don't own it then it's the duty of whoever DOES own it; usually the council. People usually have absolutely zero right to do anything to the pavement outside their house (modify etc), so they sure as **** should not be made responsible for maintaining something they've no right to. Do not make it mandatory and legal for the onus to be on someone to do something TO something they DON'T OWN. If someone WANTS to do it, then fine. But the notion that they should be somehow held accountable for a piece of property that they have no legal hold over is **** infuriating. Utter madness. Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Yes, one of many infuriating issues I have with the 'claim' culture. Just **** off, you litigious rats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) There's some US states were it's a legal requirement to clear the pavement outside your house, we should make it the same here. Maryland, for one. My sister-in-law (now in her late 60s) lives alone in Baltimore - in a corner house, so she has a lot of sidewalk ('pavement' means the road itself over there), which gets a lot of snow on it that has to be cleared every winter. Luckily she has nice neighbours, whose kids will help her out. Edited January 25, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Absolutely infuriating bullshit (with all due respect). If I OWN the pavement outside my house THEN it's my duty. If I don't own it then it's the duty of whoever DOES own it; usually the council.People usually have absolutely zero right to do anything to the pavement outside their house (modify etc), so they sure as **** should not be made responsible for maintaining something they've no right to. Do not make it mandatory and legal for the onus to be on someone to do something TO something they DON'T OWN. If someone WANTS to do it, then fine. But the notion that they should be somehow held accountable for a piece of property that they have no legal hold over is **** infuriating. Utter madness.Ok, then make it a requirement for the council to do it, and we can all pick up the bill in council tax then.I know which one I'd prefer though as the bill for clearing all the pavements in a decent amount of time wouldn't be cheap.The paths are literally unwalkable in many places because no one gives a shit as long as the roads are ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) One of the biggest problems of the 'claim' culture (if there is one) is that people use it to try and abnegate responsibility for doing something in a particular situation or they blame it for not doing something which ought to be pretty reasonable. Edited January 25, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm home after conquering Edge Hill whilst those around me floundered. It's not even that steep, maybe 1:15 - 1:20, but 2 cms of snow combined with knobheads that clearly have no clue how to drive or what to do if stuck made it both dangerous and hilarious. Waiting for my chance it was just amusing watching the wheel spins, the burnt out clutches and the three ton tanker that got stuck. My passengers even asked me why I was so calm compared to everyone else, to which I replied that I knew I'd get up the hill as soon as a gap appeared and I was just waiting for the opportunity. We did get stuck at one point (because the idiot in front of me stopped), two small pieces of cardboard sorted that out though and as soon as the knob in front of me pushed his car to the side, I was away leaving lots of people scratching their heads.<br /><br />Scousers cannot drive in snow<br /><br /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 The problem with being required to clear your yankee pavement or you are liable is actually offset by being allowed to take people out with a sniper rifle should they approach an area you are responsible for. In an ideal world, you can ignore the 'clear path' rule, shoot the tit that might have slipped and sued, then slip on the spent shell cases and sue the NRA. all the above is bang tidy true facts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 In the Peak District its still snowing heavy. about 4 - 5 inches down at the moment Can't see me doing much gardening tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 M6 North just outside of Wigan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted January 26, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2013 Lovely, lovely rain down here in sunny Ruislip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts