Court: House of Lords
Judgment Date: 13 December 1950
Where Reported: [1951] A.C. 367; [1951] 1 All E.R. 42
Legal Issues in Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The legal issue in Paris v Stepney Borough Council centred on the duty of care an employer owes to an employee with a known disability.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council questioned whether the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment included taking extra precautions for an employee with a pre-existing disability.
In this instance, the employee, who had only one good eye, was injured at work, leading to blindness.
The core legal question in Paris v Stepney Borough Council was whether the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s disability required them to provide additional protective measures (in this case, goggles) to prevent the employee from sustaining a more severe injury compared to other employees without such a disability.
Material Facts in Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The appellant, a garage hand employed by Stepney Borough Council, had only one good eye, a fact known to his employers.
On May 28, 1947, while dismantling a vehicle, a metal chip flew off and lodged in his good eye, causing complete blindness. This work was similar to his duties over the previous five years.
There was no suggestion that his pre-accident disabilities increased the chances of the accident. The appellant claimed damages against his employers, alleging negligence for not providing and requiring him to wear suitable goggles.
The employers had supplied goggles for other roles like welders and those working on grinding machines but not for vehicle maintenance and repair.
The employers contested the claim, denying negligence and suggesting contributory negligence, though the latter claim was not pursued.
Judgment in Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The trial judge, Lynskey J., ruled in favour of the workman, awarding £5,250 in damages. He found that the employers, knowing the workman had only one useful eye, were under a duty to provide and require the use of goggles.
The Court of Appeal set aside this judgment, holding that negligence was not established. However, the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision.
It held that the special risk of injury to a workman with a known disability (in this case, one good eye) is a relevant consideration in determining the precautions an employer should take.
They found the employers negligent for failing to provide protective goggles for work of this nature, thereby entitling the workman to damages.
This decision indicated a divergence in judicial opinion regarding the extent of duty of care owed by employers to employees with disabilities.
The Reason for the Decision in Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The House of Lords’ decision rested on the principle that an employer’s duty of care extends to considering the specific vulnerabilities of their employees.
In this case, the appellant’s one-eyed condition, known to the employers, significantly increased the risk of grave injury from an accident.
The court noted that while the risk of an accident occurring (such as a metal chip flying off) was the same for all employees, the consequence for the one-eyed employee was disproportionately severe, potentially leading to total blindness.
The court reasoned that the standard of care in negligence cases must account for the specific circumstances of each employee.
This includes considering the severity of potential injuries, especially when the employee has known disabilities that could exacerbate the consequences of workplace accidents.
The court contrasted this with the general standard of care applied to employees without such disabilities.
Significantly, the court rejected the argument that the employee’s disability needed to increase the risk of an accident occurring for the employer to be liable. Instead, it focused on the gravity of potential harm from an accident.
The court drew analogies with other situations where the severity of potential harm dictates the level of precaution, such as handling dangerous materials.
The judgment was informed by the principle of foreseeability in negligence law, which requires considering not just the likelihood of an accident but also the potential severity of the outcome.
The court emphasised that a reasonable employer, aware of an employee’s disability, should take additional precautions to mitigate the risk of severe harm, even if such precautions are not ordinarily required for other employees.
The decision in Paris v Stepney Borough Council established that an employer’s duty of care in negligence includes considering the specific vulnerabilities of their employees and taking appropriate measures to protect them from foreseeable risks of serious harm.
Read article: Will I Be Fired For Not Working Overtime?
Conclusion
Paris v Stepney Borough Council is a landmark case in defining the scope of an employer’s duty of care, particularly towards employees with disabilities.
The ruling underscores that employers must consider the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of their employees when implementing safety measures.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council established that an employer’s duty of care is not just a general obligation but requires taking additional precautions to prevent severe injury to employees with known disabilities.
This judgment has broader implications for how employers assess and manage risks in the workplace, emphasising the need for individualised consideration of employee vulnerabilities in creating a safe working environment.
