Quote: (Originally Posted by
AD_ward9)
I think you have the quote not quite right.
I will raise it with Ron Bell at the 61508 Association meeting this Wednesday and report back.
Alex
To copy the correspondance verbatim;
"I think it could be argued that the clause is of sufficient imprecision to render it meaningless."
Is there a point to that or are we nit picking?
So when facing a court of law in the event of an accident and basing your entire structured arguments on one interpretation of this clause, it I doubt it will be possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that reasonably practicable means was not employed if the clause was followed in any reasonable interpretation.
It would end up one appointed experts opinion over anothers, and I have had much experience with courts as appointed expert to know thats a dead end.
The only constructive route would be in clarifying the standard in such a way that it is not open to interpretation and is still commercially viable. Without both, there is no point to it.