In Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 the court considered the mathematical implications of the risk. The claimant was blind in one eye and employed as a welder. He was non provided with protective equipment for his eye(s). Even though it was established that the provision of such equipment was not standard subroutine the court ruled that the defendant should have considered the extreme consequences and that it was a relevant factor.
The second factor that is considered by the courts is the likelihood of the consequences occurring. In Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 the court considered whether it would be average to expect a cricket ground to erect a net to prevent cricket balls from leaving the ground. The court examined the probabilities of the consequences occurring and say that the likelihood of occurrence was a relevant factor.
The case of Latimer v AEC Ltd. [1953] AC 643 provides the third factor that is considered.
The defendant is only get to take measures that are sightly and it is possible that the only possible way of preventing a particular harm would require a disproportionate funding. In Latimer a product of flooding and other(a) materials rendered the floor of the factory exceedingly slippery. The defendants placed sawdust but did not close the factory, a step that the claimant maintained they should have taken. The provide of Lords ruled that the degree of risk had to be weighed against the extent of curative work that was necessary. In this case it would not have been reasonable to require them to shut down the entire factory.
The most sparse of the factors...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment