Tort Law

Stone v. Bolton

[1950] 1 KB 201

Facts

• Cheetham Cricket Club operated a cricket ground beside a public road and nearby residential property.
• A fence separated the cricket ground from the road.
• Because the playing field was situated below the road, the effective height of the fence above the pitch was approximately seventeen feet.
• The distance from the batsman to the place outside the ground where Miss Stone stood was nearly one hundred yards.
• Cricket had been played at the ground for many years.
• Balls had occasionally been hit over the boundary.
• However, such occurrences were rare.
• During a match, a batsman struck a ball over the fence.
• The ball travelled onto the highway and struck Miss Stone.
• She suffered personal injuries.
• Miss Stone sued the club in negligence and nuisance.
• The trial judge found that the possibility of a ball striking someone outside the ground was so small that the club had not breached its duty.
• Miss Stone appealed to the Court of Appeal.

• Whether the previous escape of a small number of cricket balls made the risk reasonably foreseeable.
• Whether the club was required to erect higher fencing or take additional precautions.
• Whether a low probability of injury necessarily prevented a finding of negligence.

• A person conducting an activity must take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable injury to persons outside the premises.
• The court considers:
o previous similar occurrences;
o the probability of injury;
o the seriousness of potential harm;
o the cost and practicality of precautions; and
o the nature and social value of the activity.
• At the Court of Appeal stage, the judges treated the known ability of balls to leave the ground as significant evidence of foreseeable danger.
• The absence of earlier personal injury does not necessarily remove the warning supplied by earlier escapes.
• A risk need not be frequent before reasonable measures may be required.

• The evidence showed that cricket balls had previously crossed the boundary.
• Although the incidents were uncommon, they demonstrated that the fence did not make escape impossible.
• The club therefore knew that a sufficiently powerful hit could reach the road.
• A cricket ball travelling at speed was capable of causing serious physical injury.
• The Court of Appeal considered that the trial judge had given excessive weight to the rarity of the risk.
• It was not necessary for the claimant to show that someone had previously been struck.
• Earlier balls leaving the ground provided notice of the danger.
• The club could potentially have:
o raised the fence;
o installed additional screening;
o altered the position of the pitch; or
o adopted another precaution reducing the chance of a ball reaching the highway.
• The majority considered the risk foreseeable enough to require further action.
• It therefore treated the club’s failure to improve the protection as a breach of duty.
• However, this was not the final result of the litigation.
• The House of Lords later reassessed the same facts in Bolton v. Stone and concluded that the extremely low probability meant that reasonable persons could disregard the risk.

• The Court of Appeal allowed Miss Stone’s appeal and held the cricket club negligent.
• Previous escaped balls made the danger reasonably foreseeable.
• The club’s failure to take additional precautions was treated as a breach.
• The decision was subsequently reversed by the House of Lords.