We are often asked what the difference is between the legal duty of ‘absolute’ and ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.
In the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, there are certain duties imposed on 
employers, the self employed and employees in order to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent the risk of death or injury from electricity.
Often, the differences between absolute duty and reasonably practicable duty are confused and it can be difficult to understand clearly where one ends and the other begins.
To aid your understanding of the two terms here is a brief layout of the differences between the two and what each actually means.
Absolute Duty
If the regulation states that the duty of the person is ‘absolute’, this means that the relevant regulation must be adhered to regardless of the time, effort and cost of doing so. This means that there is no reason that can be given to excuse not complying with a regulation which states that duty of adherence is ‘absolute’.
Reasonably Practicable
Where this term is used in regulations it means that a balance must be found between minimising the level of risk and the time and cost of doing so. However, in the electrical industry, the risk is very high, (death), so the reasonable steps to adhere to regulations that use this term are very high. This means that although there are allowances for time, effort and cost of adhering to regulations, this will not excuse non-compliance.
It should also be noted that risk assessments could be subject to scrutiny following an accident and should, therefore, always be kept and updated when required.
Always ensure that you comply with all relevant safety regulations to maintain a safe working environment for all.
