header-logo header-logo

13 May 2016 / Carrie de Silva
Issue: 7698 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Get your facts straight

nlj_7698_desilva

What exactly was Mr Paris doing in Stepney Borough Council’s garage in May 1947, asks Carrie de Silva

Throughout my years of studying and teaching law I have read a good many law reports but not, I will admit, for every case encountered, or even for every case mentioned in lectures. Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3, [1951] 1 All ER 42, was one such, and will be well known to many, if not all, readers. It involved the finding of negligence against an employer for not ensuring that a one-eyed workman in a garage wore goggles, with the consequence that he was injured in his one good eye and rendered blind (his other eye having been lost on active service in 1941). Expert witnesses opined that it was not usual industry practice for (fully-sighted) men to wear goggles in carrying out this sort of work.

The question posed was: did an employer owe a duty of care to the claimant where, while the likelihood of injury was the same as for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll