From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1951] AC 367 (HL). The claimant garage worker was blinded when he was struck in the eye by a steel chipping. At the time of the injury, he had already lost the sight in the other eye from a cataract. The defendant employer argued that the risk of such an injury causing blindness in an ordinary person was so small that it was not required to provide eye protection. The House of lords held that the risk to an ordinary person was irrelevant; the defendants knew that their employee was blind in one eye, and in such circumstances the 'reasonable employer' would have provided eye protection.