Which statement correctly distinguishes a 'loss' from a 'near miss'?

Which statement correctly distinguishes a 'loss' from a 'near miss'?

• A. Near miss has more financial impact than a loss
• B. Near miss always results in injuries
• C. Loss has direct or indirect financial impact on a company; Near miss has no measurable financial impact but potential for loss
• D. Loss has potential for loss

Answer: (C)

The key idea is distinguishing actual financial impact from potential risk. A loss means real costs to the company, either direct (repairs, medical expenses) or indirect (downtime, disruption, fines). A near miss shows a hazard that could have caused harm or loss but didn’t actually result in financial impact, so there’s no measurable cost yet—though it highlights exposure that should be addressed. This makes the statement that a loss has direct or indirect financial impact while a near miss has no measurable financial impact but signals potential for loss the best fit. The other options mix up the relationship by implying financial impact where there isn’t any, or by suggesting near misses always cause injuries, or by redefining loss in a way that doesn’t capture its actual financial consequence.

The key idea is distinguishing actual financial impact from potential risk. A loss means real costs to the company, either direct (repairs, medical expenses) or indirect (downtime, disruption, fines). A near miss shows a hazard that could have caused harm or loss but didn’t actually result in financial impact, so there’s no measurable cost yet—though it highlights exposure that should be addressed. This makes the statement that a loss has direct or indirect financial impact while a near miss has no measurable financial impact but signals potential for loss the best fit. The other options mix up the relationship by implying financial impact where there isn’t any, or by suggesting near misses always cause injuries, or by redefining loss in a way that doesn’t capture its actual financial consequence.