Question

In a land-mark judgment in the Court of Appeal, in the case of Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] All ER 743 (CA), Lord Justice Asquith awarded £984 (about £25,000 in today's money) to the widow for the NCB's failure to provide adequate protection against a roof-fall that killed Mr. Edwards. He was killed when an unsupported section of a travelling road in a mine gave way. Only about half the whole length of the road was shored up. The company argued that the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine was prohibitive when compared to the risk. The question at issue was not the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine operated by the company. The issue was the cost of making safe the section of road that fell. Some roads are secure and show no signs of failing. Others may already have fallen and have 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 Judge said that risks should always be reduced unless the employer could demonstrate that there was "gross disproportion" between the costs and the benefits. Explain the term "gross disproportion" and comment on how it is applied in the UK.

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

The term "gross disproportion" refers to a legal principle that is applied to assess whether the costs of taking a certain action to prevent harm are unreasonably high when compared to the potential benefits or the magnitude of the risk involved. In the case of Edwards v National Coal Board, Lord Justice Asquith used this term to determine whether the National Coal Board (NCB) had failed in its duty to provide adequate protection against a roof-fall that caused Mr. Edwards' death.

In the judgment, Lord Justice Asquith stated that risks should generally be reduced unless the employer can demonstrate that there is a "gross disproportion" between the costs of taking preventive measures and the benefits derived from them. This means that if the cost of preventing harm is unreasonably high compared to the potential benefits or the level of risk involved, then the employer may not be held liable for the resulting damages.

The concept of gross disproportion is a balancing test used to evaluate whether a defendant's actions or omissions were reasonable in a particular situation. It acknowledges that there may be circumstances where the costs of taking preventive measures are so exorbitant that it would be unreasonable to expect a party to undertake them. However, the burden of proof lies with the defendant to establish this gross disproportion.

In the UK, the application of the principle of gross disproportion varies depending on the context and the specific facts of each case. Courts will consider factors such as the seriousness of the risk, the likelihood of harm occurring, the availability of alternative measures, and the financial resources of the defendant. The courts aim to strike a balance between promoting safety and avoiding unduly burdensome obligations on businesses or individuals.

It is important to note that the concept of gross disproportion does not provide a blanket defense for employers or individuals to avoid their responsibilities to ensure the safety of others. It requires a careful assessment of the specific circumstances and a demonstration that the costs of preventive measures are truly excessive in relation to the potential benefits and risks involved.