Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 30 August 2007 09:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C Morning all. Can anyone give me the official definition of reasonably foreseeable and where it comes from? Cheers
Admin  
#2 Posted : 30 August 2007 09:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Julian Wilkinson This may help, bit of legal jargon :-) 'regulations qualify preventive measures with expressions – like “reasonably practicable” or “reasonably foreseeable” – which do not occur in the source directive, these expressions have to be interpreted, if at all possible, as force majeure exceptions to the employers’ liability for detrimental occurrences, rather than as preconditions of the employers’ obligation to prevent such occurrences'
Admin  
#3 Posted : 30 August 2007 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C wow, thanks. Off to find my dictionary!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 30 August 2007 10:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy hELEN, As far as I can remember, the term "reasonably foreseeable" come from a court case many years ago when the Judge (??) said that "if a man on a Clapham omnibus would have foreseen it happening, then its reasonably foreseable" or something like that. Basically it means "Joe Public, normal memeber of public, a non expert etc" would predict it happening. Sorry for the rubbish grammar, but I know what I mean't to say! Holmezy
Admin  
#5 Posted : 30 August 2007 12:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jom Helen, I doubt you will find an official definition. If the phrase appears in your Act, then see if the act contains a definition. It's juries and judges who determine what was reasonably foreseeable in specific instances. John.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 30 August 2007 12:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Berg Helen Assess what is the reasonably foreseeable risk and balance it against the time, trouble, physical difficulty and cost etc then decide the level of precaution. As John said the courts will ultimately decide on 'reasonable' in the circumstances. (Clapham Omnibus etc is Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club 1933) If you are prosecuted for failing to comply with so far as is reasonably practicable you must be able to prove there was no better practicable means of preventing an event based on what you could reasonably foresee. If the word reasonably is not there then the duty taken to be stricter and time cost etc may not be an adequate defence.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 30 August 2007 13:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham You might also want to look at the following website: www.cre.gov.uk/publs/con...04sp_foreseeability.html Whilst not specifically relating to a health and safety issue the court decision could, according to my conversation with legal people, impact on health and safety issues. Chris
Admin  
#8 Posted : 30 August 2007 13:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz Try http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm for the theory. Then try http://www.exchangechamb...e/casereports/jebson.htm for an interesting cross-discipline example case that we can all relate to.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 30 August 2007 13:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Helen The legal concept of 'reasonably foreseeable' stems from Section 40 HSWA - Onus of proving limits of what is practicable etc. The case law for s40 defence was determined by what can be deemed to be reasonably foreseeable. Ray
Admin  
#10 Posted : 30 August 2007 14:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Glen Coe I do not think it was intended to be so technical. I would suggest that if you have identified a hazard that is not outrageous, then it is reasonably foreseeable that the hazard may realise the risk and develop into an incident? however, if you do not identify the hazard then an incident is probably not reasonably foreseeable?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 30 August 2007 15:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp The request was for the 'official definition' and therefore the question lends itself to a technical answer. Whether a set of circumstances are deemed to be 'reasonably foreseeable' will be determined by the Court and not any other subjective process. The concept of foreseeability in accidents has been discussed at length by academics etc. Some observers suggest that certain accidents and disasters are indeed foreseeable. Whereas Wildavsky argues that they are only foreseeable with the benefit of of hindsight. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two polarised notions. Ray
Admin  
#12 Posted : 30 August 2007 15:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C Thank you all - some interesting articles. Let me put my query in context..... Confined Space Regs R1, defines a confined space as "........there arises a reasonably foreseeable specified risk....". Before you roll your eyes, I'm not after clarification as to the definition of a confined space. We (my Director and I) have a long standing arguement regarding where to draw the line as far as the definition is concerned. My view is that if the specified risk is not reasonably foreseeable, i.e. it is not reasonably foreseeable that a person may become unconscious, then the area is not a 'Confined Space'. His (Director's) view is that if there is even a remote possibility of, say, a toxic gas then an area becomes a confined space. I know I'm not explaining myself very well, but I'm interested to hear othjer people's views on the subject. Cheers
Admin  
#13 Posted : 30 August 2007 16:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy Helen, can't quite remember the exact definition, but a confined space is somewhere where there is a risk of oxygen depletion, where the size or shape of the space inhibits movement, access and egress, where rescue from the space would be difficult, or where fluids (either solids or liquids) could move or bocome unstable and envelope someone. Excess heat or cold should also be considered. Or I might just be guessing, but its something like that. So, if you enter a grain silo, the entance is usually via a small door at the top, the air will be dusty, it will probably be warm, there may be gases present that deplete the oxygen, the grain will be unstable and you could feasible drown in it, rescue will be difficult, so its reasonably foreseeable that an accident could happen. Whether or not you could pass out is not the definition of a confined space, but is one of the considerations when designating a confined space. Again, sorry about the grammar and its probably not the best explanation, but I think I know what I meant!! Holmezy
Admin  
#14 Posted : 30 August 2007 16:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Glen Coe I am probably splitting hairs, but you are talking about risks when you should be talking about hazards, I think. The whole thing for me is about being reasonably foreseeable and that refers to likelihood. I suggest that even if the hazard has a remote likelihood then it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the event could occur.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 30 August 2007 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy Helen, Curiosity got the better of me so I looked it up on the HSE website, and I know you wernt looking for a definition!! Confined Spaces at work A confined space is a place which is substantially enclosed (though not always entirely), and where serious injury can occur from hazardous substances or conditions within the space or nearby (e.g. lack of oxygen). Technically you are probably both wrong or a bit right in your "unconcious" arguement. Holmezy
Admin  
#16 Posted : 30 August 2007 16:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C Thanks Holmezy, Your definition is a starting point :-) The definition from CS regs specifically mentions loss of consciousness, asphyxiation etc. My/our arguement is more based on the fact that because the definition does mention, serious injury, loss of consciousness, asphyxiation and drowning, is it the risk of these that needs to be reasonably foreseeable or the risk of the presence of the hazards that may cause these, i.e. gas, grain, flood water, that needs to be reasonably foreseeable. Thanks.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 30 August 2007 16:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C sorry, overlap in posts there.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 31 August 2007 08:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Helen The link between foreseeability, reasonably practicable and confined spaces is becoming somewhat tenuous. Let's see if I can get myself out of jail with this one. Risk is the likelihood that an adverse event may occur and could be described as the probability. No one is born with hindsight, so therefore one must try to establish the likelihood of an event occurring, its harmful effect and what controls can be put in place to eliminate or reduce the adverse event. Therefore the foreseeability of a risk and subsequent harm should it materialise is by examining the various scenarios described above. At the end of the day it is about making an informed judgement. It is not science. Ray
Admin  
#19 Posted : 31 August 2007 09:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy Ray, sort of agree with most of your comment, however, risk is a factor of liklehood and severity, but I agree its an informed judgement. Reasonably forseeable; if we have a confined space, a large old water tank for instance, that has a small sealable entrance, and has an amount of stagnant liquid in it, and the liquid is giving off toxic gases, then its RF that A)someone may should the door and the worker suffocates, B)even with the door open, oxygen may deplete and the worker suffocates C)the worker may pass out from heat exhaustion, D)the worker may collapse and drown, E) worker may trip and fall etc etc What would not be RF would be that there is a sudden downpour of rain, the work site floods, the floods dislodge the water tank from its supports, the tank then floats and the current then takes the tank into open waters and as the worker is trying to escape, he is eaten by a shark! or something equally odd! So, again, just because there may be a risk of unconciousnees, does not necesarily make it a confined space, there are other factors to consider. TGI Friday..... Holmezy
Admin  
#20 Posted : 31 August 2007 09:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holmezy sorry, second bit of the last post (not the bugle tune) was for Helens consideration. Holmezy
Admin  
#21 Posted : 31 August 2007 16:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen C thanks all.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.