The claimant had only one good eye, a fact known to his employers, the defendants. Despite this, no protective goggles were provided and he became blind when a piece of metal went into his good eye. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable. Although the risk of injury was small, the consequences of the injury were significant.
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
Answer
?
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
Answer
The claimant had only one good eye, a fact known to his employers, the defendants. Despite this, no protective goggles were provided and he became blind when a piece of metal went into his good eye. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable. Although the risk of injury was small, the consequences of the injury were significant.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it If any injury that may occur would be serious, greater care will be needed than if the risk of injury was slight. Thus in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 the claimant had only one good eye, a fact known to his employers, the defendants. Despite this, no protective goggles were provided and he became blind when a piece of metal went into
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.