Account of the case
On 12 November 2024 at about 4:30 to 5:00 pm, the Injured A (born in 1982) was leaving the restaurant R and slipped on the pavement in front of the restaurant with the consequence of fracturing the ankle. For the personal injury suffered, A claimed damages from the City of X which was responsible for the maintenance of the street frontage in question.
The City of X filed a notification of claim to their general liability insurance company covering their operations.
The Insurance Company issued a decision on the claim, finding that the Insured, i.e., the City of X was not liable to pay damages for the accident. Based on the information provided in the case, the City had taken appropriate care of the anti-slip treatment of the pavement, thereby meeting their responsibility for pavement maintenance.
Customer’s complaint
A declared to be dissatisfied with the decision of the Insurer and requested that the Insurance Complaints Board issue a recommended solution in the case.
In their complaint and the accompanying writs, A repeats their entire claim for indemnity for the personal injury suffered. A insists that the City has neglected their maintenance obligation and also urges the City to take future action to avoid corresponding damage.
In their writs, A provides further information, above all, on the meteorological conditions prior to and at the time of the accident. On the day in question, the temperature remained sub-zero for the entire day. During the day, the weather alternated from light rain to snow which probably caused black ice to form on the ground, later covered by light snow. A points out that on the day in question, the street section had been gritted at about 5:20 in the morning, i.e., 11 hours prior to the accident. Therefore, the rain, snow, freeze-up and pedestrian traffic had already eliminated the impact of the gritting at that hour. Due to the above factors, the pavement was very slippery at the time of the accident. A had tried to walk with care but due to the ice, lost their balance and fell and suffered the consequences here described.
According to A, the damage now caused could have been prevented, had the City taken appropriate anti-slip treatment action. A further finds that this point is a further demonstration of the fact that the City bears the liability to pay damages in the case at hand. A further points out that according to the information provided by the Insurer to FINE, the time between the anti-grid treatment prior to the accident and the following gritting was over 72 hours. During this time, the circumstances of the street were not controlled in any way. Therefore, the City could not reliably show that the street section would not have turned slippery at the time of the accident or thereafter. A also finds that in the case at hand, it is up to the City to prove that A did not fall on the frontage, which was under the City’s maintenance responsibility, should there be any unclarity concerning this.
In the additional writs provided after the Insurer’s response, A repeats their claim for their personal injury suffered. To support their claim, A has provided further medical documentation as well as a eye-witness statement on the conditions of the place of the accident. Moreover, A reiterates their argumentation given in the earlier writs plus comprehensive accounts on the street conditions as well as on the anti-slip measures at the time of the accident. A further finds that this was a case of so-called high-risk weather conditions due to the alternations in frost and spells of rain and snow. According to A’s view, the conditions must be seen such to call for monitoring of the street slipperiness conditions. A refers to the Sections of Tort Liability Act as well as to the fact that the pedestrian has the right to trust that the passages in urban areas are in a state to allow for safe walking. A single gritting in the early hours of the morning is not enough to guarantee such safe conditions. Considering the purpose of the General Liability Insurance as well as the fact that the weather conditions in northern Finland cannot be a surprise to the party taking care of the maintenance, A further finds that it is a damage for which the City of X is responsible, compensable on the basis of the liability insurance covering its operations.
Reply by the insurance company
In its reply, the Insurance Company repeats the history of the case at hand as well as the applicable Policy terms and legislation.
Firstly, the Insurance Company points out that according to its understanding, it has been always undisputed that A had slipped on a street frontage for which the City bears the maintenance responsibility. However, the Insurer continues to find that in the situation at hand, the City had met its maintenance obligation appropriately and therefore the city nor, as a consequence, the Insurance company are liable to compensate in this case.
In its response, the Insurer repeats the weather conditions at the time of the accident as well as the information of the latest gridding of the street frontage prior to the accident. According to the Insurer’s view, there were no such changes in the weather conditions as would have called for further anti-slip measures taken at the time in question. Being the place of the accident a pavement, it is not an object of impacts causing the sand to wear off – as would the passage of vehicles. The Insurer also notes that the gritting of the section had been made with a machine, and according to the information provided by the Insured, machine-made gritting of a normal street section is enough when the door fronts and stairs do not impede the gritting. The Insurer adds that that the present place of the events was located on such a “normal” street section. Therefore, the anti-slip treatment of the place of the event had been appropriately taken care of, considering the prevailing weather conditions. The mere fact of slipping on a pavement does not, as such, mean that the maintenance obligation would have been neglected. The Insurer notes that to avoid danger, also the road user has the obligation to observe the prudence required by the circumstances.
As to what A has suggested regarding the subsequent neglected anti-slip treatment of the place of the accident, the Insurer notes that the conditions of the pavement after the date of the accident have no bearing on the case.
Hearing of the Insured
The Insurance Complaints Board has reserved the City the opportunity to present their point of view in the case. The Insured had nothing to add.
Recommended solution
Formulation of question
The case is about assessing whether the Insured, or the City, has proved to have taken appropriate care of the maintenance of the passage in question.
The applicable norms of Law and Policy terms
Under Chapter 2 Section 1.1 of the Tort Liability Act (31 May 974/412), a person who deliberately or negligently causes injury or damage to another shall be liable for damages, unless otherwise follows from the provisions of the Act.
Under the Policy Terms, Section 5.1 (What is compensated by business liability), the insurance covers the personal or material damage caused to another during the operation mentioned in the Policy, found to have taken place during the validity of the Policy in the area covered by the same, for which the Insured bears the liability to compensate under the valid legislation.
Evaluation of the case
Under the Tort Liability Act and general principles of tort law, the generation of liability to compensate requires, as a general rule, the existence of intent or negligence. Negligence refers to reproachable action, i.e., a mistake, carelessness or failure.
According to established legal practice, the party responsible for the maintenance of a road is liable to pay compensation for a damage caused by lacking maintenance of the road, unless it has been shown that the damage was not caused by the road-keeper’s negligence. The party with the maintenance responsibility has – according to the legal practice – an underlined responsibility to see that movement in the area is safe. Neglecting this responsibility may lead to the liability to compensate. In the winter, the party responsible for maintenance must see to the snow being cleared from the passages and sand being scattered to prevent skidding. Should a person moving in the street area under the maintenance responsibility of the party in question be injured due to a accident caused by skidding, the part responsible for maintenance must prove – to be released from liability – that they have acted appropriately and according to circumstances to prevent skidding, or prove that the accident has taken place for a reason other than slipperiness of the area.
When assessing which measures should have been taken by the party responsible for maintenance, the decisive question is whether the meteorological conditions prior to the occurrence of the damage would have called for special maintenance measures. Moreover, the party responsible for maintenance must be prepared for foreseeable changes in the weather conditions. Even if the party responsible for street maintenance does have the underlined obligation to ensure safe movement on the street, the liability for a slipping accident is, however, not independent of negligence, i.e. severe. Not even in a case where the maintenance has been kept at an appropriate level, gridding is not always enough to avoid the slipperiness caused by ice.
Based on the information available to the Insurance Complaints Board, the machine gridding of the place of the accident had last been done on the day of the accident at 5:20 am, and A had had the slipping fall at 4:30 – 5:00 pm. At the time of the gridding, the temperature had been barely subzero, and as the day progressed, the temperature had fallen, as of 13 pm, down to a couple of degrees subzero. According to the information, there was some occasional rain and snowing between 3 and 10 pm on that day. At the place of the accident, no controls of the sufficiency of the anti-slip measures had been made prior to the accident suffered by A.
In the Board’s understanding, even a slight rain during subzero conditions is typically prone to turn road surfaces very slippery because water tends to freeze to thin and almost invisible ice. In the case at hand, a thin layer of snow fell later on the frozen water which, for its part, was liable to aggravate the slipperiness of the road. Therefore, the Insurance Complaints Board finds, that even if no major increases or decreases of the temperature did take place, considering the fact that the gridding had been performed very early in the morning, followed by a dropping of the subzero temperature and added by alternating raining and snowing, the party responsible for the maintenance should have controlled, during the day, whether the gridding performed at 5:20 am was sufficient.
Considering the above information on the meteorological conditions and the anti-slip measures taken as well as the fact that it has not been shown that A had the fall for any other reason but the slipperiness, the Board finds that it has not been shown that the anti-slip measures at the place of the accident were appropriately taken care of prior to the A’s slipping. According to the Insurance Complaints Board, the careful action in the anti-slip measures in the area should have, in the case at hand, called for – at least – a control of the area and an eventual additional gridding also after 5:20 am. The Insurance Complaints Board finds that the Insured is responsible for the damage suffered by A due to slipping.
Final outcome
Based on the grounds given above and the information available to it, the Insurance Complains Board recommends that the Genera Liability Insurance Company pay compensation for the Customer’s personal injuries in line with the Policy Terms.
The Insurance Complaints Board’s decision is unanimous.
INSURANCE COMPLAINTS BOARD
Chairperson Norros
Secretary Hanén
Members
Haapasaari
Kankkunen
Karimäki
Malmberg