2, Magnitude of likely harm
Illustrated by PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL - The claimant, who had one eye, was employed as a welder in the defendants garage. Goggles weren't normally supplied, and when a piece of metal flew into the claimants good eye, The defendants were liable, but wouldn't have been for a normal sighted person. The greater the risk, the greater precautions need to be taken.
3, Cost and practicality of preventing the risk
Illustrated by LATIMER V AEC Ltd. - A factory was flooded, and the owner put sawdust down to soak up the excess water. Parts of the factory remained slippery and an employee was injured. However, The defendant was not liable as the only way to avoid the risk would be to shut the factory completely.
Comments
No comments have yet been made