Health And Safety At Work: The Meaning Of ´Reasonable Practicability´

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) imposes a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. The qualifying phrase 'so far as is reasonably practicable' is not defined in the Act, but has been subject to considerable judicial interpretation over the past three decades. Recently, the extent to which an employer can rely on the act or default of an employee as part of a reasonable practicability defence has again been the focus of case law.

The meaning of 'reasonable practicability'

The concept of 'reasonable practicability' was defined by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v National Coal Board 1, it concluded 'reasonably practicable' was a narrower term than 'physically possible' and implied that a computation must be made, in which quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures required to avert the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) on the other. Deciding whether you have done everything reasonably practicable to avoid accidents in the workplace therefore requires a careful balancing exercise. Only if the risk is insignificant compared to the measures required to avert it will the standard have been discharged.

Section 40 of the Act places the burden of proof squarely on the defendant. It must prove on the balance of probabilities that it did everything reasonably practicable to avoid the incident or accident. This is not an easy burden to discharge.

Reasonable practicability and employee negligence

Where an employer has in place appropriate policies, has provided training and monitored its staff, is it open to the employer to argue that it did everything reasonably practicable to ensure the health of safety of its staff, even where an employee ignores all of these measures and an accident results? Historically, the courts have taken a strict line on this issue, holding that one of the responsibilities of employers is to protect employees from themselves - they cannot avoid responsibility simply by pointing the finger at an employee.

An employee may be personally liable under section 7 of the Act, which provides that it is the duty of every employee to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of others who may be affected by his acts or omissions. However, individual liability under section 7 will not absolve an employer of liability, as case law has shown.

R v British Steel plc 2

...