Plaintiff, car mechanic, was blind in one eye. He wasn’t wearing goggles and when working on a car a piece of metal flew off and damaged his other eye.
He sued his employer for not providing him with goggles.
HL said that even where a disability doesn’t make risk of injury more likely, the fact that it may make the resulting injury more serious is a factor in determining whether the employer should have taken precautions and was negligent.
In this case, the potential seriousness of the injury, despite relative improbability, meant that Defendant should have taken precautions, i.e. given Plaintiff goggles.
NB the minority approved the reasoning but denied that there was sufficient foreseeability in this case to establish negligence, even if the potential injury was severe.
What precautions would the ordinary, reasonable and prudent man take?
This is a function not only of how great is the probability but also of potential seriousness injury.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
GDL Tort Law | Duty Standard And Breach Notes (8 pages) |
Tort Law | Negligence Law Notes (20 pages) |