Paris v Stepney Borough Council
[1951] AC 367
Independent editorial summary โ not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
In assessing whether a defendant has taken reasonable care in breach of duty, the court must weigh the magnitude of the risk against the precautions available. The magnitude of the risk comprises both the probability that harm will occur and the seriousness of the harm if it does. Where a particular claimant faces an exceptionally grave consequence from a given accident โ such as total blindness for a one-eyed person โ the employer must take greater precautions than would be required for an employee who would suffer a lesser injury. The greater the potential harm, the lower the level of probability of occurrence that will justify precautionary measures.
Facts
Paris, a one-eyed man, was employed by the council as a mechanic. While hammering a bolt, a chip of metal flew into his good eye, blinding him completely. The council did not provide goggles, which was standard practice for two-eyed workers.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords (by a majority of 3-2, Lords Normand, Oaksey, and Morton of Henryton in the majority; Lords Simonds and MacDermott dissenting) held the council liable for negligence. Paris had been blinded in one eye before taking up employment with the council. While performing mechanical work, a metal chip struck his remaining good eye causing complete blindness. The council's practice โ in line with general industry practice at the time โ did not require goggles for mechanics. The House held that the council knew Paris was one-eyed. The gravity of the potential harm to him was far greater than to a two-eyed worker: a chip entering his good eye meant total blindness rather than injury to one eye. This elevated severity of potential injury required the council to take additional precautions for Paris specifically โ either providing goggles or warning him of the heightened risk. The majority emphasised that the standard of reasonable care is not uniform but is calibrated to the individual circumstances of the claimant where the employer has particular knowledge. The dissenting Law Lords doubted whether the risk of eye injury at the particular task was high enough to require goggles regardless of the individual's circumstances.
Key Quotes
"The gravity of the harm which may be suffered by the workman is a relevant consideration in determining the precautions which the employer is bound to take."
โ Lord Normand at 385
"The greater the risk of injury and the greater the injury that may be suffered, the greater are the precautions that an employer must take."
โ Lord Oaksey at 389
"The standard of care demanded by the law is the care of the reasonable and prudent man in the circumstances of the particular case. The particular knowledge that the plaintiff had only one eye is among those circumstances."
โ Lord Normand at 385
Subsequent Treatment
Followed as authoritative on the relevance of severity of potential harm in the breach-of-duty calculus. Cited in Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643, where the House of Lords weighed costs of precaution against the magnitude of risk.
Applied in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd [2011] UKSC 17, where the Supreme Court considered whether pre-1990 noise-exposure standards satisfied the employer's duty of care, taking into account the gravity of hearing loss as a consequence.
Considered in Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL), where the House extended Paris-style reasoning to hold that precautions adequate for sighted pedestrians were insufficient when the defendant had reason to foresee that blind persons might use the footway.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help