Paris v Stepney Borough Council
An employer must take into account the seriousness of the injury that would result if a risk materialised, especially where the employee has a known disability.
Facts
Mr Paris worked as a garage hand for the council. He had already lost the sight of one eye in the war, which his employers knew. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt from the underside of a vehicle, a chip of metal flew into his good eye, and he became totally blind. He was not provided with goggles, which were not normally provided for this kind of work. He sued the council in negligence.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the council was liable. The seriousness of the consequences of an injury is relevant in deciding what precautions a reasonable employer should take. Although the risk of an eye injury was the same for a man with one good eye as for others, the consequences of an injury to Mr Paris would be much more serious, because he would be totally blind. A reasonable employer would have provided him with goggles, even if it would not have done so for employees with two good eyes.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333
- Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2016] QB 639
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
- Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
