Condition requiring an insured to take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and safeguard property. The clause is not usually construed as a warranty, enabling the insurer to repudiate the liability irrespective of a causal connection between the breach and the loss (Lane v. Spratt (1970)). A liability policy is triggered by the insured’s negligence and so it would be repugnant to avoid liability because of the insured’s lack of care except, depending on the facts, where lack of care amounts to recklessness.

A rule of construction to the effect that where there is ambiguity the reasonable construction is to be preferred.

Institute Cargo Clause making it a condition that the insured shall act with reasonable despatch in all circumstances under his control. Cover runs while the goods are in ordinary transit but if the insured chooses to interrupt the transit, the insurance terminates at the place of the interruption.

The objective test in negligence is based on the ‘acts or omissions’ of the reasonable man – the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus who does ‘not have to possess the wisdom of a Hebrew Prophet or the agility of an acrobat’. No person is an ‘insurer’ of his fellow men – there has to be fault, which, in negligence, means falling below the standard of the reasonable man.

Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (and other regulations): ‘all floors, steps, stairs, passages, and gangways shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be kept free from any obstruction and from any substance likely to cause a person to slip’. This is the lowest of the duties (compare with properly maintained and all practicable steps). The occupier can weigh the cost against the risk and the expected efficacy of the measures. Reasonable practicability is considered stricter than negligence and it is for the employer to prove that compliance was impracticable.