Paris v Stepney Council (1951) | A-Level Law | Key Case Summaries | Tort Law
Автор: tutor2u
Загружено: 2022-09-04
Просмотров: 1481
Описание:
This case established that a higher duty of care may be expected of a defendant where the claimant has a characteristic which increases their vulnerability.
#tortlaw #tort #alevellaw
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
00:21 Case facts
01:19 Case outcome & legal principle
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Paris - a fitter in a garage
Defendant: Council - the garage owners
Facts:
Paris was employed in a garage, the owners (the Council) knew that he only had one eye with useful sight. Whilst he was undertaking his employment duties a chip of metal entered his only useful eye and eventually rendered him entirely blind. No goggles were provided to Paris, despite the risk of eye injury associated with his work, because it was not required by law at the time.
Outcome: Liable
Legal principle:
As the employers knew of the existing visual impairment suffered by Mr Paris it was reasonable to expect them to take additional precautions in respect of him, thus the garage breached their duty of care by failing to provide the claimant with additional safety measures.
Повторяем попытку...
Доступные форматы для скачивания:
Скачать видео
-
Информация по загрузке:
![Case Summary: White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999]-Tort law-Rescuers](https://imager.clipsaver.ru/GO-RlEUI1nk/max.jpg)
![Case Summary- McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] Alpha Piper disaster-Tort law](https://imager.clipsaver.ru/J8waKn9YO68/max.jpg)
