Rogerborg

My dad owned a DIY shop near Bedford.  I'd work there at weekends... during the winter I'd have to scrape away the snow and ice on the pavement outside the shop.  Hard work.
Then a lawyer told him that if someone slipped on the pavement that had been cleared away, perhaps because some melted snow had re-frozen - he'd be liable for damages.

I didn't have to scrape the pavement any more.     Yay!

I agree that it's a sensible policy.  But as Rostok notes, once you make yourself responsible for implementing it, you're then making yourself liable for not implementing it perfectly.

It turns out that it's a clause from their insurer.  The way I interpret that is that their insurer doesn't want to be paying out for ankle injuries.  So when someone does twist an ankle anyway, the site will be in the position of having allowed "unsuitable" footwear, and (notionally) their insurer can try and claw back any payout from them.

Since they're not specifying any particular PPE standard, or any process for checking or recording that they've been checked, all they can really say is "well, they must have looked OK" (but weren't).

The same already applies to eyepro, of course. <dramatic-gopher.gif>

As someone with pretty bad toe arthritis, I do struggle wearing boots. If it is too bad I will end up wearing trail runners and a separate ankle support. Which is better then nothing.