Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3, [1951] AC 367
- Court: House of Lords, United Kingdom
- Judgment Date: 13 December 1950
- Bench of Judges: Lord Simonds, Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord MacDermott
- Area of Law: Tort Law – Employer’s Liability – Negligence
Facts (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
Edward John Paris, the appellant, was employed as a garage hand by the Stepney Borough Council from 1942. Paris had been blind in his left eye due to war injuries, a condition known to his employer from 1946 after a medical examination. On May 28, 1947, while dismantling a vehicle, a piece of metal flew off as Paris struck a bolt with a hammer, resulting in the loss of sight in his right eye, leaving him completely blind. Paris claimed damages, alleging that the council was negligent in failing to provide and enforce the use of protective goggles.
The council argued that it was not standard practice in garages or similar workplaces to provide goggles for such tasks. The risk of injury was minimal and the same for all employees.
Trial Court Decision
Mr. Justice Lynskey ruled in favour of Paris, holding that the council owed a specific duty of care to him as a one-eyed employee. The council’s failure to provide goggles constituted negligence.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, reasoning that the risk of an accident was the same for all employees, regardless of their individual physical conditions. It held that the council’s duty was not heightened due to Paris’s partial blindness.
House of Lords Decision (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
By a majority, the House of Lords restored the trial court’s judgment in favour of Paris.
The Lords emphasized that employers owe a duty of care to employees as individuals, considering specific vulnerabilities. While the likelihood of the accident was the same for all employees, the potential consequences were significantly graver for Paris due to his one-eyed condition.
The scope of the duty of care includes accounting for the severity of harm that could result from an accident, not just the probability of its occurrence. Reasonable precautions, such as providing goggles, were inexpensive and should have been taken to mitigate the risk for Paris.
Further, while it was not customary for employers to provide goggles for such tasks, this did not absolve the council of liability. The common practice is not alone to be seen.
So, while goggles might not have been deemed necessary for all employees (i.e., two-eyed workers), they were considered necessary for Paris because the consequences of an eye injury for him were far more severe—blindness.
Quotes from the case
Lord Normand:
“The test is what precautions would the ordinary reasonable and prudent man take. The relevant considerations include all those facts which could affect the conduct of a reasonable and prudent man and his decision upon the precautions to be taken. Would a reasonable and prudent man be influenced, not only by the greater or less probability of an accident occurring but also by the gravity of the consequences if an accident does occur?”
“The amount of care will be proportionate to the degree of risk run and to the magnitude of the mischief that may be occasioned.”
Lord Morton of Henryton (although dissenting):
“I think that the more serious the damage which will happen if an accident occurs, the more thorough are the precautions which an employer must take.”
“Applying the general principle which I have endeavoured to state, I agree with your Lordships and with Lynskey J. that the condition of the appellant was a relevant fact to be taken into account.”
Key Legal Principles (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
An employer’s duty of care is individualized and requires consideration of an employee’s specific vulnerabilities.
The gravity of potential harm is a relevant factor in determining the reasonable precautions that an employer should take.
Failure to provide protective equipment, where the consequences of an injury are severe and foreseeable, constitutes negligence.
Outcome
Paris succeeded in his appeal. The House of Lords reinstated the trial court’s judgment in his favour, holding that the council was negligent in failing to provide him with goggles, given their knowledge of his one-eyed condition.
References:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1950/3.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: