The case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council is one of the most significant decisions in English tort law on the question of the standard of care owed by employers to their employees. Decided by the House of Lords in 1950 and reported in 1951 AC 367, the judgement established that when determining whether a defendant has breached a duty of care, the seriousness of the potential harm and the known characteristics of the claimant are highly relevant. The ruling remains a cornerstone in negligence law, shaping how courts balance risk and precaution in assessing breach of duty.
Background and Context of Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Negligence in English law requires the claimant to prove that:
- The defendant owed a duty of care,
- The duty was breached, and
- The breach caused legally recognisable harm.
The standard of care is usually assessed by reference to the hypothetical “reasonable person.” However, Paris v Stepney Borough Council raised the question of whether the reasonable standard must remain uniform for all employees, or whether it should adjust to account for particular vulnerabilities known to the employer.
This case involved workplace safety, a key concern in mid-twentieth century Britain. At the time, industrial and manual labour accidents were common, and legal rules concerning employer liability were developing to ensure fair protection for workers.
Facts of Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The claimant, Mr. Paris, was employed by Stepney Borough Council as a general garage-hand. He had suffered a war injury which left him blind in one eye, a fact known to his employer.
The council’s practice was to provide protective goggles only to employees engaged in welding or tool-grinding, but not to ordinary garage-hands. While at work, Paris attempted to loosen a rusted car axle bolt using a hammer. During this task, a piece of metal flew into his good eye. Tragically, he lost the sight in that eye, leaving him completely blind.
Paris sued Stepney Borough Council for damages in negligence, claiming that they had failed in their duty of care by not providing him with protective goggles.
Legal Issue
The central issue in Paris v Stepney Borough Council was whether the employer had breached its duty of care by failing to supply goggles to an employee known to have only one functioning eye. More specifically, the question was whether the standard of care should be judged in relation to the “ordinary” employee, or whether the seriousness of harm to this particular claimant should alter the precautions expected of a reasonable employer.
The council argued that goggles were not normally provided to garage-hands, and since their practice was in line with industry standards, they had no duty to make special provision for Paris. The claimant argued that the seriousness of the potential harm in his case imposed a heightened duty on the employer.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council Judgement
The House of Lords found in favour of the claimant. It held that Stepney Borough Council was in breach of its duty of care for failing to provide protective goggles.
Reasoning in Paris v Stepney Borough Council
The reasoning in Paris v Stepney Borough Council turned on two main considerations:
1. Duty is owed to the particular claimant
The Lords emphasised that the duty of care is owed to the individual employee, not to a hypothetical average worker. Employers must consider the actual circumstances of their employees, especially when they are aware of particular vulnerabilities. Since the council knew Paris was one-eyed, they should have recognised the gravity of risk if an accident occurred.
2. Seriousness of harm is a crucial factor in breach analysis
When determining breach, courts weigh the probability of harm against the seriousness of the possible injury. Even if the likelihood of a fragment striking the eye was low, the consequences for Paris were devastating. For a normally sighted employee, losing one eye would still leave them with vision; for Paris, losing his good eye meant total blindness. This heightened seriousness made it reasonable to take greater precautions, such as providing goggles.
Thus, the standard of care was not static: it required adjusting to the foreseeable seriousness of harm in the specific case.
Conclusion
The judgement in Paris v Stepney Borough Council stands as a landmark in tort law. It highlights that negligence is not assessed in the abstract but in relation to the claimant’s actual situation and the seriousness of possible harm. By recognising that employers owe a duty to protect vulnerable employees from disproportionate risks, the House of Lords advanced both fairness and safety in the workplace.
The principle that the seriousness of potential harm must be weighed alongside the likelihood of harm continues to shape modern negligence law. Employers and courts alike must consider not only how likely an accident is, but also how catastrophic its consequences could be for the individual concerned.
Thus, Paris v Stepney Borough Council remains a crucial authority, ensuring that the law of negligence is sensitive to both the realities of risk and the dignity of individual workers.
