Paris v Stepney BC

Last updated

Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameParis v Mayor, etc., of Metropolitan Borough Of Stepney
Decided13 December 1950
Citation(s) [1951] AC 367,
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lords Simonds, Normand, Oaksey, Morton of Henryton and MacDermott
Keywords
Negligence

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3 [1] was a decision of the House of Lords that significantly affected the concept of Standard of care in common law. The plaintiff Paris was employed by the then Stepney Borough Council as a general garage-hand. He had sight in only one eye, and his employer was aware of this. The council only issued eye protection goggles to its employees who were welders or tool-grinders. In the course of his usual work, Paris received an injury to his sighted eye. He sued the council for damages in the tort of negligence. On appeal it was decided that Stepney Borough Council was aware of his special circumstances and failed in their duty of care to give him protective goggles.

Contents

Facts

Paris was employed by Stepney Borough Council as garage-hand. [2] He had suffered a war injury that left him with sight in only one eye. [3] While Paris was attempting to loosen a rusted car axle bolt with a hammer, he caused a chip of metal to fly into his sighted eye, and as a result was permanently blinded in both eyes. [2] [3]

Case law

Related Research Articles

LexisNexis is a part of the RELX corporation that sells data analytics products and various databases that are accessed through online portals, including portals for computer-assisted legal research (CALR), newspaper search, and consumer information. During the 1970s, LexisNexis began to make legal and journalistic documents more accessible electronically. As of 2006, the company had the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records–related information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delict (Scots law)</span> Actionable civil wrongs in Scots law

Delict in Scots law is the area of law concerned with those civil wrongs which are actionable before the Scottish courts. The Scots use of the term 'delict' is consistent with the jurisdiction's connection with Civilian jurisprudence; Scots private law has a 'mixed' character, blending together elements borrowed from Civil law and Common law, as well as indigenous Scottish developments. The term tort law, or 'law of torts', is used in Anglo-American jurisdictions to describe the area of law in those systems. Unlike in a system of torts, the Scots law of delict operates on broad principles of liability for wrongdoing: 'there is no such thing as an exhaustive list of named delicts in the law of Scotland. If the conduct complained of appears to be wrongful, the law of Scotland will afford a remedy even if there has not been any previous instance of a remedy being given in similar circumstances'. While some terms such as assault and defamation are used in systems of tort law, their technical meanings differ in Scottish delict.

In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupiers' Liability Act 1984</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability for trespassers. In British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877, the House of Lords had decided that occupiers owed a duty to trespassers, but the exact application of the decision was unclear. The matter was then referred to the Law Commission for a report, and as a result the Occupiers' Liability Bill was introduced to Parliament by Lord Hailsham on 23 June 1983. The Act was given the royal assent on 13 March 1984 as the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 and came into force on 13 May.

<i>Brown v Heathcote County Council</i>

Brown v Heathcote County Council [1986] 1 NZLR 76 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability for negligent inspection.

<i>Stieller v Porirua City Council</i>

Stieller v Porirua City Council [1986] 1 NZLR 84 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability in tort for negligent inspection.

<i>Invercargill City Council v Hamlin</i>

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 NZLR 513 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding council liability for negligent inspection, as well the issue in tort when the start period for the statute of limitations for a latent defect begins.

<i>Taupo Borough Council v Birnie</i>

Taupo Borough Council v Birnie [1978] 2 NZLR 397 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for loss of profits due to negligence.

<i>Riddell v Porteous</i>

Riddell v Porteous [1999] 1 NZLR 1 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability in tort for defective products.

<i>Daniels v Thompson</i>

Daniels v Thompson CA86/96 [1998] NZCA 3; [1998] 3 NZLR 22 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding exemplary damages in tort, in order to get around the normal restrictions that ACC legislation place on injury claims.

<i>Queenstown Lakes District Council v Palmer</i>

Queenstown Lakes District Council v Palmer CA83/98 [1998] NZCA 190; [1999] 1 NZLR 549 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the claiming of damages for nervous shock from witnessing an accident. .

<i>Takaro Properties Ltd v Rowling</i>

Takaro Properties Limited v Rowling [1987] UKPC 34 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding negligence by the government

<i>McCarthy v Wellington City</i>

McCarthy v Wellington City [1966] NZLR 481 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legal issue of causation involving negligence cases in tort

<i>Saunders & Co v Bank of New Zealand</i>

Saunders & Co v Bank of New Zealand [2002] 2 NZLR 270 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding claims in tort for negligent misstatements.

<i>Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson</i>

Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the Statute of Limitations defence in tort claims.

<i>Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd</i>

Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2005] 1 NZLR 324 is decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand regarding tort claims in situations where a claim can be in both tort and contract.

<i>Morrison v Upper Hutt City Council</i>

Morrison v Upper Hutt City Council [1998] 2 NZLR 331, [1998] NZRMA 224 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding negligence claims against the government.

<i>A v Bottrill</i>

A v Bottrill [2002] UKPC 44 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the awarding of exemplary damages.

<i>B v Attorney General</i>

B v Attorney General [2003] UKPC 61 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding negligence cases against the government.

<i>Rawlinson v Rice</i>

Rawlinson v Rice [1997] 2 NZLR 651, [1998] 1 NZLR 454 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding claims in tort for misfeasance in public office.

References

  1. ↑ Full text of the decision
  2. 1 2 Davies and Malkin (2003). Butterworths Tutorial Series - Torts. LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 54.
  3. 1 2 Luntz and Hasmbly (2006). Torts - Cases and Commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 227.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.