Fiona Mccondichie V. Mains Medical Centre
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Drummond Young |
| Date | 31 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | A2821/01 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 12 November 2003 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| A2821/01
| OPINION OF LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG in the cause FIONA McCONDICHIE Pursuer; against MAINS MEDICAL CENTRE Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer: Allardice; Digby Brown
Defenders: Springham; HBM Sayers
31 October 2003
[1]The defenders are a partnership of general medical practitioners and the partners thereof. They carry on practice from premises at Mains Drive, Erskine, which consist of a surgery and an adjoining car park. In February 2000 the pursuer was a patient of the practice. It is common ground between the parties that on 17 February 2000 the pursuer visited the surgery and, and she was leaving, slipped and fell in the practice car park. As a result she sustained certain injuries. It is common ground that the car park belonged to and was occupied by the defenders. It is also common ground that the weather that morning was cold; some snow had fallen on the previous day, and ice had formed on the ground. The pursuer now claims damages from the defenders on two grounds, liability for negligence under section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 and breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
Evidence
[2]The pursuer's evidence was that, on 17 February 2000, she had visited the defenders' surgery to obtain a repeat prescription. She arrived by car, she thought at approximately 9.10 am. She drove into the car park and parked there. From her car she made her way across the car park towards a path that led to the surgery; like the car park, the path was owned and occupied by the defenders. The pursuer stated that she tried to walk up the path but could not because it was too icy. Consequently she walked on the grass, where it was easier to walk than on the path. She then continued along a small path to the main door of the surgery. After she had arranged her repeat prescription she left the surgery, and went back the same way towards her car. She stated that she had difficulty walking on the path, which was still icy. She followed it for a distance, and then walked across the grass. From there she walked on to the car park surface to reach her car, which was parked on the other side of the car park. On the way there she slipped and fell. She described the conditions where she fell as "very very icy". The point where she fell was part of the roadway through the middle of the car park, between the areas where cars were normally parked. She presumed that she had slipped on ice. Both of her legs went up in the air, and she fell on her back. Her arm appeared injured; she described it as "strange looking". She went back into the surgery, where a doctor came and looked at her injuries. He said that her arm had been broken, and that she must go to hospital. The pursuer's sister arrived some time later and took her to hospital, where she arrived at approximately 10.30 am.
[3]The pursuer stated that, when she arrived at the defenders' practice, there was no indication that the car park surface had been treated. There was no sign of grit on the ice. When she fell, there was no sign that the surface had been treated in that area. Likewise, the paths had not been treated at that stage; that was why she had to walk on the grass as she went towards her car. She had not noticed what conditions were like when she finally left to go to hospital; she was in too much pain at that stage. She could not recall whether the roads outside the car park had been treated. In cross-examination she was asked whether the paths might have been salted before she walked along them. She replied that they possibly had, but she had not seen it; the paths were very slippery. The practice nurse, however, had said to the pursuer that she and a doctor had been out putting salt and grit down. The pursuer thought that if that was correct the salting and gritting was not adequate. She accepted, however, that if brownish grit had been spread in the car park she might possibly not have noticed it. In cross-examination the pursuer stated that she had walked carefully, and had been wearing flat shoes at the time.
[4]The pursuer's sister, Dr Elizabeth McCondichie, also gave evidence. She stated that she had been telephoned some time after 9 am and was asked to take her sister to hospital. She drove to the defenders' premises, and parked her car in the car park there. Her evidence about the time when she arrived varied, but it seems likely that she must have arrived at the defenders' surgery some time before 10 am. She described conditions around the defenders' building as "very slippy and icy". It had snowed, and the snow had frozen over. She had difficulty in walking, and had observed another man who had had difficulty in walking. She had not seen any indication that the car park surface had been treated, nor any indication that grit had been spread there. The pathways around the surgery building had grit on them. This was dotted on the paths, and was of some help, but it did not cover the whole of the surface of the paths. Dr McCondichie stated that she had not seen any salt, although it had possibly been mixed with the grit that she had seen. If there had been grit on the car park surface she thought that she would have been able to see it, but she was quite sure that she did not see any sign of grit there, at least in the areas that she walked across. In cross-examination she accepted that, if salt had been placed on the ground, she would not necessarily have seen it, and she accepted that it was possible that salt had been placed on the paths. She went into the defenders' medical centre, where she met her sister and took her to hospital. They arrived at the Southern General Hospital at 10.15, and thus must have left the practice at about 10 am.
[5]The defenders also led evidence from Philip Glen, a consulting engineer and partner in Harley Haddow. Mr Glen's experience included work in relation to the health and safety of commercial premises. He accepted in cross-examination that he was not a health and safety consultant as such, but was responsible for producing documentation on the health and safety aspects of construction and the occupancy and use of buildings. The treatment of ice would be included in the health and safety file for a building. Mr Glen stated that he would expect a system for the treatment of icy footpaths and car parks. The defenders' system, as pled on record, was put to him; this involved laying down salt and grit on the paths and car park before the practice opened at 9 am. Mr Glen replied that he had no reason to believe that there was anything wrong with such a system, and that this was a standard way of dealing with ice. Salt is the primary method of melting ice, because a combination of salt and water has a lower freezing point that water. The grit has certain advantages; it tends to hold salt on the surface that is treated, and it is not washed away by the melt; it also improves traction for tyres or feet. Grit alone, however, without salt, will not cause ice to melt; salt is required for that purpose. Roadside bins maintained by local authorities contain a mixture of grit and rock salt. The advantage of rock salt as against table salt is that has a larger ingrained consistency, and hence lies longer on the surface and is not washed away as easily as table salt. It is also possible to control the spread more effectively with a larger ingrained material. Mr Glen did not think that was anything special about the defenders' car park. If grit and salt were applied in sufficient quantities, it could be treated effectively for ice. Mr Glen was asked certain questions about the likely temperature if grit and salt were seen to be effective in certain places. His final position was that, if the grit and salt were effective in places, they were capable of being effective generally. Mr Glen accepted that the application of grit and salt could be effective even if the mixture was not applied to every single part of the area treated. He also accepted that the application of grit and salt reduced the chance of slipping, but did not give a guarantee that no one would slip. Finally, Mr Glen was asked certain questions about the time that it would take to treat the car park. He was unable, however, to say more than that the time taken would depend on the method of spreading.
[6]The defenders led two witnesses, Dr Murray MacPherson, who was one of the doctors practising at the Mains Medical Centre and thus one of the defenders, and Mrs Margaret Adams, who was the practice manager. Dr MacPherson stated that he had been a partner in the practice for just over five years. In February 2000 there were four partners and a number of other staff. On 17 February 2000, Dr MacPherson remembered that the weather was very cold. He believed that it had snowed the day before, and there was a lot of ice on the roads. He had driven to work and had arrived at approximately 8.35 am. His route to work lay in part along the motorway, which had been treated, but the other roads were more slippery and did not appear to have been gritted.
[7]The practice had a system for the treatment of the car park and footpaths if ice had formed. The practice manager, Mrs Adams, was responsible for putting salt on the paths if she thought that they were slippery. She was responsible for bringing the salt to the surgery. So far as the car park was concerned, the first doctor, who was usually Dr MacPherson, would collect grit from a roadside bin maintained by the council and spread that grit on the car park. At that time, there was a roadside bin just around the corner from the surgery, about 150 or 200 yards away. That bin might be used as a source of grit, but sometimes Dr MacPherson brought the grit from sources near his home. On 17 February 2000, Mrs Adams had arrived at the surgery before Dr MacPherson. She had put salt on the paths, but had done nothing to the car park. Dr...
To continue reading
Request your trial