Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Facts

Paris worked for Stepney Borough Council as a vehicle maintenance worker. He had sight in only one eye, which the council knew. While working under a vehicle he struck a bolt with a hammer, and a chip of metal flew into his good eye, leaving him totally blind. The council did not provide goggles for this kind of work, in line with general practice in the trade, and Paris sued for negligence.

History

Paris lost in the Court of Appeal and appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether an employer's duty to take reasonable care in providing safety equipment is assessed by reference to the risk to the typical employee, or takes into account the greater seriousness of the consequences of an accident for a particular employee whose disability is known to the employer.

Held

Appeal allowed by three to two. The council was in breach of its duty of care, because it should have taken account of the greater gravity of the harm to a one-eyed employee and provided goggles.

Ratio

• In deciding whether an employer has taken reasonable care, both the likelihood of an accident and the seriousness of its consequences are relevant, and the greater seriousness of the consequences for a particular employee, including the effect of a disability known to the employer, may require precautions that would not be needed for others.
• General practice in an industry is relevant evidence of reasonable care but is not conclusive.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The standard of care takes account of the foreseeable probability of harm and of how serious the harm would be if it occurred; for Paris, an accident would mean total blindness, whereas for a two-eyed worker it would mean the loss of one eye.
• The council knew of Paris's disability, and so knew the heightened consequences of an accident for him, although the probability of an accident remained low.
• That goggles were not generally supplied for this work did not settle the question, because the employer owed its duty to Paris as the individual employee he was.

Where it fits in the module

On the FHS Tort list under the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, which directs the court to consider the social value of the defendant's activity, a predominantly responsible approach and heroic intervention in an emergency when assessing breach. Paris is the classic common law statement that breach turns on balancing the probability and gravity of harm against the burden of precautions, and it shows the factors that the 2015 Act and section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 supplement but do not displace. Candidates can ask whether the statutes add anything to the common law, and how the common law weighs social utility, as in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835 and Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47.

Criticisms

• Requiring more of an employer where an employee is particularly vulnerable may discourage the employment of disabled workers, and places employers in the position of making individual risk assessments of staff.
• The balancing of probability, gravity, cost and social value is a loose exercise with no agreed weights, so outcomes can seem intuitive, as the division of opinion in the House itself illustrates.
• The weight to be given to industry practice is left unclear: the majority treated the practice of not providing goggles as relevant but not decisive, without saying when it should be displaced.