Tort; Negligence; breach of the duty of care; assessing reasonable care; factors; seriousness of harm.
Facts: The Stepney Borough Council employed Paris to do maintenance work on vehicles in its garage. The council knew that, as a result of a war injury, Paris was blind in one eye. The council failed to give protective goggles to Paris. One day, while working on a vehicle, Paris used a hammer to strike a rusty bolt, causing a chip of metal to fly off. The chip struck his good eye and blinded him completely. Paris sued the council for Negligence. The court held that the risk of harm was foreseeable in the circumstances and so the council owed Paris a duty of care.
Issue: What was the council obliged to do in the circumstances to respond to the foreseeable harm?
Decision: On appeal, the House of Lords held that the gravity of the likely harm to the workman was a factor to be taken into account in assessing the council's obligation.
Reason: Because losing the sight in his remaining eye was extremely serious, appropriate steps ought to have been taken to avoid that harm. The more serious the likely harm, the more thorough the precautions to avoid that harm must be. Lord Morton said (at 51):
"In considering generally the precautions which an employer ought to take for the protection of his workmen it must ... be right to take into account both elements, the likelihood of an accident happening and the gravity of the consequences."
Thus, while the council did not necessarily need to provide safety goggles to all its workers, it was reasonable for them to provide goggles to Paris, given the seriousness of potential harm to him in particular.