I can't help but wonder if it is a question that both are right and that the deveil is in the use or misuse of terminolgy. Risk being the 'sum' of something along the lines of the hazard or the potential severity of harm (or however you like to look at it) AND the likelihhod of that hazard or harm occuring or being realised, then either statement could be true depending on whether the hazrd itself was significant, the likelihood was significant or indeed a bit of both. If there is a high likelihood of lots and lots and lots and lotsand ...... (you get the pictuure) of minor injuries, then it may not be unreasonable to conclude that the overall risk would be considered significant.

I broadly agree with both replies and of course the difference in opinion of the outcome may be contentious if all relevant parties were not consulted at the RA stage - quite a common problem I find! My advice incidently to the issue of significance was to try and reach a sensible outcome in terms of task contination or request the 'injured' party to attend a medical examination by the organisations independant OHP. The injury was of a 'cosmetic' nature...

Yes Yes I think we are all aware of reg 3 akwatson (with all due respect) the point of the thread was the determination of 'significance' through the viewpoint of the assessor, contributors and/or 'injured' party and if a precedent had been set on its (HS) definition. One viewpoint of course could be that the 'significant' findings of an RA idendified that there was insignificant risk attached to the task! GC

My answer to your query is: neither. You seem to confuse "risk" with likelihood, and in your first phrase, the severity is merely unquantified. As others have stated "risk" is a composite term.

Unfortunately, many people do not know what are the requirements of the management regulations. A point often missed is that risk assessments are not concerned with the probability of the hazardous event they are concerned with the consequences of the hazardous event when it does occur. If they were concerned with the former than the latter it would be possible to justify doing nothing in most circumstances as accidents are rare events and therefore individual risk would not warrant any action being taken. In considering risk it should not be forgot that all events have a myriad of consequences from the trivial to the severe. What is significant in terms of injury depends on who is injured you or I; if I cannot do what I wish to do then it is significant to me. Regulation 3 makes it clear that the purpose of assessing risks is to determine what measures are required, so that appropriate controls are in place to protect persons from work activities. Regarding absolute duties, the duty to control exposures to a hazardous substance COSHH Regulation 7 is an absolute duty whilst the duty to prevent exposure is a strict duty insofar if I have taken all reasonably practical steps I have complied with my duty in law. If I was patronising earlier I apologise. As to earlier the significant findings may be that there is no risk but that the measures must be taken to ensure that is no risk to health or safety. Regards

Phil, Please rereae my post. The risk assessment is concerned with the severity and likelihood of injury; not the probability of the event that gives rise to the risk of injury. Don't blame me; an absolute duty is one for which there is no limit - you either comply or you don't. A strick duty is limited in extent. Regards

Phil, There is no argument that injuries result from undesirable events. If the event cannot occur, then there is no danger so there is no risk; Risk being the possibility of danger . If the event can occur, then there is a risk of injury. In these cases the Courts have determined we must consider the severity of the injury and the likelihood of the injury in fact occurring; we are therefore not concerned with the likelihood of the event but its consequences. It should be noted that were are not concerned with hypothetical or fanciful risks but real risks. The purpose of assessing risks is to identify measures to comply with the law. Where a risk exists we must take the measures specified by law. In some cases we must take specified measures, whilst in other cases we must do what is practical, what is reasonably practical, or what is reasonable in the circumstances. Regards

The purpose of assessing risks is to identify measures to comply with the law Regards

Adrian, I can visualize the three of us shaking our heads at each other on this one! I think at the heart of the matter we all recognise the fundamental fact that the regulations were designed to prevent harm, injury and suffering etc. Compliance and reduced likelihood of litigation may be extremely relevant, however these shall always just be a positive derivative of good practice and not the primary factor. Happy Easter Gary Oh and by the way I feel a lot better now!

The law is not my reason; my reason is to prevent ill health and injury. However, the law is the rules under which we operate. When interpreting the requirements of the rules it is important to use the exact words of the rules. Regards