In a land-mark judgment in the Court of Appeal, in the case of Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] All ER 743 (CA), Lord Justice Asquith awarded 984 (about 25,000 in today's money) to the widow for the NCB's failure to provide adequate protection against a roof-fall that killed Mr. Edwards. He was killed when an unsupported section of a travelling road in a mine gave way. Only about half the whole length of the road was shored up. The company argued that the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine was prohibitive when compared to the risk. The question at issue was not the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine operated by the company. The issue was the cost of making safe the section of road that fell. Some roads are secure and show no signs of failing. Others may already have fallen and have already been repaired. The section in question was already supported by timber along half its length. The cost of making it safe was not great compared to the risk of injury and loss of life The Judge said that risks should always be reduced unless the employer could demonstrate that there was "gross disproportion" between the costs and the benefits. Explain the term "gross disproportion" and comment on how it is applied in the UK.