So Far as is Reasonably Practicable

So Far as is Reasonably Practicable So Far as is Reasonably Practicable The phrase ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ is a critical wording used in UK law on health and safety. It arose through a court trial in 1949 where the National Coal Board was in court defending against the death of an employee, Mr Edwards. Historical Incident Mr Edwards was killed when an unsupported section of a travelling road in a coal mine gave way. Only about half the whole length of the road was actually supported properly. The coal board argued that the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine in the country was prohibitive and not reasonable when compared to the risk. The legal question at issue was not the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine operated by the company. The issue was the costs of making safe the specific sections of road that were at risk of falling in. Some, perhaps many of the company’s roads were secure and showed no signs of failing – they didn’t need extra support. Others had already have fallen and had already been repaired. The section in question was already supported by timber along half its length. The cost of making it safe was not great compared to the risk of injury and loss of life. The test for what is reasonably practicable was set out in this case. The case established that the risk must be balanced against the ‘sacrifice’, whether in money, time or trouble, needed to avert or mitigate the risk. By carrying out this exercise the employer can determine what measures are reasonable to take. If the measures to be taken are grossly disproportionate to the risk, then the measures need not be taken. The full legal definition was set out by the Court of Appeal (in its judgement in Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743), and is as follows:

Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.