The Court of Appeal in Cook v Swansea City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 2142 has recently re-examined the snow and ice maintenance obligations, and duty of care, on owners of land provided and used for a public purpose. In this case, the issue was the maintenance of public car parks from ice and slippery conditions.
The case concerned a member of the public slipping on ice in a council car park. The car park was unmanned and the council therefore implemented a ‘reactive system’ to the maintenance of such car parks. The lower Court had found that such system was sufficient to discharge the common law duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable pursuant to section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Such section provided:
"(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
(3) The circumstances relevant for the present purpose include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor…"
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that there was no duty of care to protect against obvious dangers, and then summarised the factual matters in reference to the required balancing assessment:
“(1) The likelihood that someone may be injured
The risk of ice in cold weather is an obvious danger. People out and about in cold weather can be reasonably expected to watch out for ice and to take care. The Car Park did not pose a particular risk compared to any other of the Defendant's car parks. There had been no previous reports of dangerous ice conditions at the Car Park, nor any previous accidents due to ice.(2) The seriousness of the injury which may occur
Injury due to slipping on ice may be trivial or serious.(3) The social value of the activity which gives rise to the risk
The Defendant's car parks provide the useful facility of 24 hour parking. If gritting of unmanned car parks, such as the Car Park, is required whenever there is a report of icy conditions the Defendant is likely to have to prohibit their use in all its unmanned car parks in periods of adverse weather, to the considerable inconvenience of local residents and visitors.(4) The cost of preventative measures
The alternative to closing the car parks would be manning them or arranging regular gritting. Such gritting would have to be by hand and would involve significant use of staff and material resources. This would be a disproportionate and costly reaction to the risk and would have diverted such resources from situations where attention was more urgently required”.
Noting the above, the Court of Appeal supported the decision of the lower Court that there was no breach of the council’s duty of care and that a reactive system of snow and ice maintenance was adequate.
Lesson: this is an important reminder to Local Authorities and landowners (such as those of village greens and public play spaces) as to their duty of care, particularly in reference to snow and ice as was the facts of this case, where the public have rights or permission to enter their land.
