Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy In a recent case a judge stated that the risk had to be real and not a fanciful one. Is that in any way shape or form associated with a number or score i.e its only ever happened once in a hundred years therefore it is fanciful. As opposed to once in a hundred years is once too many?

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy My understanding is that it is related to a recent case of a headteacher who got slaughtered after a child fell over in the playground. I could be wrong but I do rememember the comment. Perhaps others know more?

Posted By CJP As you talk about "score" I assume that you subscribe to the common view that risk is a product of consequence and likelihood, both of which can be assigned a score. If that is so, both consequence and likelihood have to be credible e.g. it is credible that the injured party would be killed by being struck by the object and it is credible that there is a chance he would be struck. If neither consequence nor likelihood can be determined in a credible fashion (related to the actual exposure to the hazard) it then becomes "fanciful" and not a risk assessment at all. Once in a hundred years might be just as credible as once a week.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy CJP do you speak English?

Posted By John Richards Original case summing-up: "What you must decide is whether there was an unacceptable risk. The trivial risks of everyday life are not unacceptable. They are simply a fact of life, are they not?" Appeal decision: In our view the evidence in the instant case was all one way. There was no evidence on which a jury properly directed could reasonably conclude that this child was exposed to risk by the conduct of this school. All the evidence suggested that there was no risk, other than the risk that every time a child was left other than closely supervised, that that child might go unsupervised down a flight of stairs. No one sensibly suggested that in every school or public building to which young children have access, a child must be "constantly supervised" (to use the words of the judge) when the child chooses to go downstairs. # My Lord, might I ask for a defendant's costs order both here and below, please? #Yes, we shall make that order. _________________________ The childs injuries were not life threatening, until he/she got to hospital.

Posted By Tabs The ruling also shows how complex our subject matter can be. The judgement seems to go against the 'causality' chain - and says that although the MRSA may have been "caused" as a direct result of the accident (I don't know if it *was* so judged) - we may not be expected to consider it so far as to take extraordinary measures in day to day life. A serious accident could result in an air ambulance call, and an air crash, but do we have to do anything about the helicopter? No. We try to avoid the injury by mitigating the reasonable causes ... not what happens next.