Paris v Stepney BC [1950] UKHL 3

A one-eyed mechanic was blinded in his remaining good eye while working. The House of Lords held his employer, Stepney Borough Council, was negligent for not providing safety goggles, establishing that the duty of care must consider the employee's particular vulnerability.

Facts

The appellant, Mr Paris, was employed by the respondent, Stepney Borough Council, as a garage hand. It was known to his employers that he only had sight in one eye, having lost the other in a war injury. While engaged in maintenance work on a vehicle, he used a hammer to knock out a rusted U-bolt. A chip of metal flew off and struck him in his good eye, causing him to become totally blind. The employers did not provide or require the use of safety goggles for this type of work for any of their employees, and Mr Paris was not wearing any. He sued his employers for negligence. The trial judge found in favour of Mr Paris, but this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which held that there was no duty to provide goggles as the risk of such an injury was extremely small and it was not ordinary practice to do so.

Issues

The central legal issue before the House of Lords was the nature and extent of the employer’s duty of care towards an employee. Specifically, in determining the standard of care required, should the employer take into account an individual employee’s known particular susceptibility to a more serious injury? The Court of Appeal had argued that the duty was the same for all employees, regardless of individual characteristics, and was determined solely by the probability of an accident occurring. The House of Lords had to decide if this was correct, or if the gravity of the potential consequences for a specific individual was also a relevant factor.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge’s decision and finding the employer negligent. Their Lordships reasoned that the duty of care is owed to the individual, and therefore, their specific circumstances must be considered.

Lord Normand

Lord Normand clarified that the measure of care required is a function of both the likelihood of an accident and the seriousness of its consequences. He stated that an employer must account for an employee’s known vulnerabilities:

The known circumstance that a particular workman is likely to suffer a graver injury than his fellows from the happening of a given event is one which must be taken into consideration in assessing the nature of the employer’s obligation to that workman.

He argued that the smallness of the risk did not absolve the employer of their duty when the consequences of that risk materialising were so catastrophic for that particular employee. The potential harm to a one-eyed man of becoming totally blind was far greater than the potential harm to a two-eyed man of losing one eye.

Lord Oaksey

Lord Oaksey emphasised that the duty of care is not abstract but is owed to the specific individual. He rejected the notion of a uniform standard of care for all workmen in a particular role:

The duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen is a duty which he owes to each individual workman, and the circumstances of each individual workman must be taken into consideration.

He reasoned that what constitutes reasonable care must be judged in light of the employee’s personal condition, which was known to the employer. Providing goggles would have been a simple and reasonable precaution given the devastating potential outcome for Mr Paris.

Lord Macdermott

Lord Macdermott made a critical distinction between the risk of the event (the metal chip flying) and the risk of the injury (the damage to the eye). While the risk of the event was small for any worker, the risk of a grave injury for Mr Paris was substantially higher. He concluded that in assessing the duty of care, one must consider ‘the gravity of the consequences’ if an accident were to occur. For a one-eyed man, the employer ought to have foreseen the risk of total blindness and taken appropriate precautions.

Implications

This case is a landmark authority in the law of negligence and employer’s liability. It establishes the crucial principle that the standard of care is not a fixed or objective standard determined only by the probability of an accident. Instead, the court must also consider the gravity or seriousness of the potential harm. Where an employer knows of a particular vulnerability or susceptibility of an employee, they have a duty to take that into account when fulfilling their duty of care. The ‘reasonable and prudent employer’ must tailor their precautions to the specific, known needs of their individual employees. The case thus refines the neighbour principle by confirming that the characteristics of the specific ‘neighbour’ are relevant to the standard of care owed.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the trial judge in favour of the appellant (Mr Paris) was restored, finding Stepney Borough Council negligent.

Source: Paris v Stepney BC [1950] UKHL 3