58:
124:
Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must be made... in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in time, trouble or money) is placed in the other
138:
decided that "reasonably practicable" was a more narrowly defined phrase than what was "physically possible." This allowed for the creation of equations that measured the risk present in a given situation against the reasonable practicability of mitigating that risk. In other words, the equation
125:
and that, if it be shown that there is a great disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the person upon whom the obligation is imposed discharges the onus which is upon him.
139:
asked if averting the risk was worth the effort it took to negate that risk. In addition, the court in
Edwards determined that the size and wealth of the company should have no bearing on such decisions.
110:
Mr
Edwards died in an accident after the supporting structure for the mine roadway gave way. The National Coal Board argued that it was too expensive to shore up every roadway in all of the mines.
113:
The case turned when it was decided that it was not 'all of the roadways' that needed shoring up; just the ones that required it. In essence this established the need to carry out a
196:
75:
230:
17:
172:
135:
97:
225:
117:
to establish the cost, time and trouble to mitigate a risk balanced against the risk of any harm it might cause.
215:
79:
68:
235:
220:
8:
153:
114:
209:
33:
134:
This case established the concept of "reasonable practicability." The
41:
40:" to prevent even the smallest possibility of a rock fall in a
148:
37:
199:, an article on LawTeacher.net. Accessed: 19 September 2014.
78:. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
207:
36:. The 1949 case revolved around whether it was "
197:"Law for Health & Safety Practitioners"
231:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
98:Learn how and when to remove this message
74:Relevant discussion may be found on the
14:
208:
51:
47:
24:
25:
247:
120:Asquith stated in his judgement:
173:Safety Photo Account of the case
56:
129:
190:
178:
166:
29:Edwards v. National Coal Board
18:Edwards v. National Coal Board
13:
1:
159:
7:
142:
10:
252:
32:was an important case in
185:Mondaq Business Briefing
226:1949 in the environment
127:
38:reasonably practicable
122:
67:factual accuracy is
216:1949 in British law
154:National Coal Board
108:
107:
100:
16:(Redirected from
243:
236:English case law
221:1949 in case law
200:
194:
188:
182:
176:
175:15 December 2017
170:
103:
96:
92:
89:
83:
80:reliably sourced
60:
59:
52:
48:Underlying facts
34:English case law
21:
251:
250:
246:
245:
244:
242:
241:
240:
206:
205:
204:
203:
195:
191:
187:, 2 August 2007
183:
179:
171:
167:
162:
145:
136:Court of Appeal
132:
115:risk assessment
104:
93:
87:
84:
73:
65:This section's
61:
57:
50:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
249:
239:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
202:
201:
189:
177:
164:
163:
161:
158:
157:
156:
151:
144:
141:
131:
128:
106:
105:
64:
62:
55:
49:
46:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
248:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
213:
211:
198:
193:
186:
181:
174:
169:
165:
155:
152:
150:
147:
146:
140:
137:
126:
121:
118:
116:
111:
102:
99:
91:
81:
77:
71:
70:
63:
54:
53:
45:
43:
39:
35:
31:
30:
19:
192:
184:
180:
168:
133:
130:Significance
123:
119:
112:
109:
94:
85:
66:
28:
27:
26:
210:Categories
160:References
88:July 2024
76:talk page
42:coal mine
143:See also
69:disputed
149:ALARP
212::
44:.
101:)
95:(
90:)
86:(
82:.
72:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.