To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Paris v Stepney BC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paris v Stepney Borough Council
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case nameParis v Mayor, etc., of Metropolitan Borough Of Stepney
Decided13 December 1950
Citation[1951] AC 367,
Court membership
Judges sittingLords 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.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    7 075
  • Tort Law - Duty of Care

Transcription

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

References

  1. ^ Full text of the decision
  2. ^ a b Davies and Malkin (2003). Butterworths Tutorial Series - Torts. LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 54.
  3. ^ a b Luntz and Hasmbly (2006). Torts - Cases and Commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 227.
This page was last edited on 22 January 2024, at 22:01
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.