Chancing on ice? Grit it or get sued

WHEN it snows, do you clear your drive and the path to your door? Do you spread grit when it’s icy?

Most don’t – but here’s why you may want to start.

A reader called Robert told me about a legal claim being pursued against him for this very reason.

On an icy day last January, a courier delivered an Amazon parcel to Robert’s front door.

As the courier turned and started walking away from Robert’s door he slipped and fell.

Initially Robert thought the man had not injured himself. But three weeks later he had a letter from the courier company.

Shoulder

It said their employee had broken his shoulder and they would be pursuing a claim against Robert for his time off work.

Robert did not respond and heard no further. Last week Robert received a letter at his home in London from solicitors who say they are representing the courier, not the company he works for.

The letter demands compensation for the man’s injuries – and gives Robert 28 days to pay or pass the letter to his insurers, failing which they will issue legal proceedings.

In a panic, Robert contacted me to ask if he’s liable for the injury. THE LAW There is a law called the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Under this, householders have a duty towards visitors to their homes.

This means householders should make sure it is safe for visitors to travel across any of their land they make publicly accessible, such as footpaths and driveways.

In this respect, if it is foreseeable that any form of obstacle on your land is likely to cause injury you are almost certainly liable if it does.

An icy or snow-covered path or driveway is an obvious hazard likely to cause someone to fall. HOUSE INSURANCE Many people think that home insurance covers only damage to your property and theft.

The good news is that it often covers far more. It is likely that Robert will have cover for the injury sustained by the courier.

However, a word of warning – insurance companies are renowned for wriggling out of payments.

In these circumstances they could argue that Robert is not covered because he was negligent in failing to grit the path.