One day, she was walking in her yard and was hit on the head and injured by a stray ball hit by a visiting player on the cricket ground. Register; ... Stone v. Bolton, 1950 1 K.B. * If the only test applicable to this case is that of foreseeability, then Plaintiff must prevail. If a risk is reasonably foreseeable, is there a duty to prevent it? Sep 08, 2014 by Matthew Keehn. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Issue NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from a determination of liability. Alternatively, the court may determine that the appropriate remedy is an award of damages. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Although, only on very rare occasions, perhaps no more then six times in thirty seasons, cricket balls had been hit onto Plaintiff’s Side Street. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 *850 Bolton and Others Appellants; v Stone Respondent. In the history of the club, a ball had only been hit over the fence about 6 times before, and had never hit anybody. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence. (Lord Radcliffe) There is nothing unfair with requiring the Defendant to compensate Plaintiff for the injuries sustained to Plaintiff on the account of Defendant. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Under the theory of foreseeability alone, it is irrelevant to determine the percentage of chance a ball might hit Plaintiff. Whereas an agent deals with the principal’s property, a trustee does so, on behalf of the beneficiary. The ball hit Stone while she was standing outside her house. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentionally Inflicted Harm: The Prima Facie Case And Defenses, Multiple Defendants: Joint, Several, And Vicarious Liability, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Bolitho. She brought an action against the cricket club in nuisance and negligence. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Bolton v Stone [1951] 1 All ER 1078; Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92; Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609; Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520; Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245; Chaudhary v Prabakhar (1989) 1 W.L.R 29 If cricket cannot be played on a given ground without foreseeable risks, then, it is always possible to stop using the grounds for cricket. View Bolton v Stone (Highlighted with Comments) from FBE STRA 4701 at HKU. Issue. They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. PETITIONER:DoeRESPONDENT:BoltonLOCATION:Stanford University DOCKET NO. Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state. : 70-40DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)LOWER COURT: CITATION: 410 US 179 (1973)REARGUED: Oct 11, 1972DECIDED: Jan 22, 1973ARGUED: Dec 13, 1971 ADVOCATES:Dorothy T. Beasley – for appelleesMargie Pitts Hames – for appellants Facts of the case Question Media for Doe v. Bolton … Facts. 201 (C.A.) Mr. Bolton duly received a cheque for 45,000 from the Building Society. * The risk here was extremely small. The test to be applied here is whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable man in the position of the Defendant, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent danger. In its ruling in favor of Defendant, the court uses a negligence theory. Brief Fact Summary. Both the agent and the trustee deal with the property for and on behalf of another person. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Stone sued Bolton on theories that the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, and that the ground’s owners acted with common law negligence. ‘ The case of Castle v. St. Augustine's Links Ltd. (1922) 38 T.L.R. The cricket field was arranged such that it was protected by a 17-foot gap between the ground and the top of the surrounding fence. Must Defendant not carry out or permit an operation that he knows or ought to know clearly can cause such damage, however improbable that result may be? You also agree to abide by our. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. BOLTON V. STONE (1951) A.C. 850 CASE BRIEF BOLTON V. STONE (1951) A.C. 850. Prior to Miller v Jackson3 it had previously been held that there was no defence of ‘coming to the nuisance’.… (1951)Few cases in the history of the common law are as well known as that of Bolton v Stone (1951). Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Stone v Bolton. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Agent and Trustee An agent and a trustee occupy similar position. Discussion. 5. But it does not follow that it is justifiable to neglect a risk of such small The claimant, Miss Stone, was walking on a public road when she was hit on the head with a cricket ball. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 House of Lords Miss Stone was injured when she was struck by a cricket ball outside her home. In 1947, a batsman hit the ball over the fence, hitting Miss Stone and injuring her. Although the accident to Plaintiff is unfortunate, Defendant is not liable. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email ⇒ Compare this case with Bolton v Stone [1951]: in that case, making the fence taller would have been a big expense for a small cricket club. Stone sued Bolton on theories that the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, and that the ground’s owners acted with common law … You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. In this case, the reasonable man would have done nothing. Furthermore, under the statutes, only women who had been raped, whose lives were in danger from the pregnancy, or who were carrying fetuses likely to be seriously, per… Yes. Plaintiff’s injury was caused by a reasonably foreseeable risk and Defendant is liable for damages since he had a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it. The appellants were found liable at the lower courts which they appealed. * Facts. The respondent brings an action for damages against the committee and members of the club -- the striker of the ball is not a defendant. Stone v. Bolton Case Brief - Rule of Law: Plaintiff's injury was caused by a reasonably foreseeable risk and Defendant is liable for damages since he had a duty Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: Stone - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs. As a result, both of them can affect the legal position of the person on whose behalf they are acting. FACTS: During a cricket match a batsman hit a ball which struck and injured Stone (P) who was standing on a highway adjoining the ground. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Stone was walking down a road past the fence of a cricket pitch. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964) involved a question closely analogous with that under consideration here. Relief sought:Issues:Material Facts:What is the nature and extent of the duty of a person who promotes onhis land operations which may cause damage to … Discussion. However, the law of negligence is concerned less with what is fair than with what is culpable. In this case, the court did not want to force Plaintiff to bare the burden of an unlikely but foreseeable risk of injury. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Bolton v. Stone. House of Lords 10 May 1951 [1951] Defendant’s ground was held to be large enough to be safe for all practical purposes. Case Briefs. The parents of three school age children refused to permit vaccination of their children as required by statute for school attendance, … You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The case of Cude v. State, 237 Ark. Balls have only flown over the fence approximately six times in the last 30 years. The cricket field was surrounded by a 7 foot fence. Issue. Facts. The claimant was injured after a ball from a neighbouring cricket pitch flew into her outside her home. She was hit with a ball that was hit over the fence and seriously injured. e.g. Judgment reversed. Brief Fact Summary. D carrying dynamite rather than butter (per Morris LJ) ... even if other members of D's profession think conduct is neg. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. SEVERITY OF HARM - Greater precautions are required where greater harm threatened. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Held. What had happened several times before could reasonably be expected to happen again sooner or later. The tort of nuisance provides that there will be a remedy where an indirect and unreasonable interference to land has occurred.2Where a nuisance is found to have occurred the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future. 114, briefed 9/18/94 ... when he does not take precautions that a reasonable man would take under the same circumstances to prevent damage to others that would likely result from his actions. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Therefore, it was held that it was not an actionable negligence not to take precautions to avoid such a risk. * This case does not come within the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher. * It is irrelevant that no possible precaution would have arrested the flight of the cricket ball that hit Plaintiff. Strict Liability And Negligence: Historic And Analytic Foundations, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Bolton v StoneArea of law concerned:Negligence- Reasonable person standardCourt:House of LordsDate:1951Judge:Lord ReidCounsel:Summary of Facts:Respondent had been hit by a cricket ball. In a civil Court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury; and in this case the damages, as to the plaintiff’s wife, must stop with the period of her existence. Plaintiff was struck in the head by a cricket ball from Defendant’s cricket club. Synopsis of Rule of Law. JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation and others: ComC 25 Jul 2008; Ruddy v Marco and others: SCS 25 Jul 2008; Lieser v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 25 Jul 2008; VH (Malawi) v the Secretary Of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jan 2008; Land Securities Plc and others v the Registrar of Trade Marks: PatC 25 Jul 2008 Just as a principa… In the application of its negligence theory, the court held that Defendant took reasonable care to prevent the accident to Plaintiff. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Held. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 In this case, it was argued that the probability of a ball to hit anyone in the road was very slight. The court held Defendant liable on the basis of forseeability. In this test, it would be right to take into consideration the remoteness of the chance that a person might be struck and how serious the consequences are likely to be if a person is struck. One day, she was walking in her yard and was hit on the head and injured by a stray ball hit by a visiting player on the cricket ground. With her on the brief were Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, Assistant Attorney General, Joel Feldman, Henry L. Bowden, and Ralph H. Witt. This is an Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing adecision of Oliver J. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. The ball was hit by a batsman playing in a match on the Cheetham Cricket Ground which is adjacent to the highway. Baker v Bolton and others: KBD 8 Dec 1808. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentionally Inflicted Harm: The Prima Facie Case And Defenses, Multiple Defendants: Joint, Several, And Vicarious Liability, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. They stated that these considerations together did not cause a reasonable man to do anything differently in this case. Bolton v. Stone (1951), pg. A breach of duty has taken place if Plaintiff shows that Defendant failed to take reasonable care to prevent the accident. Stone (plaintiff) was walking through the gate in front of her house on Beckenham Road when she was struck with a cricket ball that was hit from the neighboring cricket grounds. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email However, in this case, they did not need to do much in order to prevent the incicdent from occurring and, furthermore, the action of the defendant had no utility i.e. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. they were just polluting the water Plaintiff claims that at least as soon as one ball had been driven into the road in the ordinary course of a match, the appellants could and should have realized that it might happen again and that, it if did, someone might be injured. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Plaintiff was struck in the head by a cricket ball from Defendant’s cricket club. A trustee can also transfer the trust property to a third party. Lamb v Camden [1981] 2 All ER 408; McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1621; Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176 The court failed to see on what principle Plaintiff is entitled to be required to accept the risk of Defendants cricket club. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Miss Stone sued the committee of the cricket ground in negligence. 10th May, 1951. It is not right to take into account the difficulty of remedial measures. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. In this case, a reasonable man would not have felt himself called upon either to abandon the use of the ground for cricket or to increase the height of his surrounding fences. He had sight in only one eye, and his employer was aware of this. Mr, Bolton acted as solicitor in this transaction, apparently for his wife, his brother-in-law, and the Leeds and Holbeck Building Society, which was to advance 45,000 odd to assist Mr. Egwu to buy the flat upon the security of the flat. The hit was exceptional and it was Judgment for Defendant. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Held. The chances of thishappening were very low. Bolton v. Stone. The pitch was sunk ten feet below ground so the fence was 17 feet above the cricket pitch. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Issue. In the 1973 court case Doe v. Bolton, the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a Georgia law regulating abortion was unconstitutional. On Aug. 9, 1947, Miss Stone, the respondent, was injured by a cricket ball while standing on the highway outside her house. Strict Liability And Negligence: Historic And Analytic Foundations, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. * The foreseeability test alone does not address the standards of ordinary careful people in the ordinary course of life. address. Concurrence. On 9 August 1947, a batsman playing in a match at the Cricket Ground hit the ball out of the ground. An agent can sell and transfer the principal’s property to a third party. No. Even the most careful person cannot avoid creating risks. Was it unreasonable for the cricket club to play cricket in an area as it was near a public area? Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3 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. The case of Miller v Jackson1 is a case on nuisance. The House of Lords held that a reasonable man would have been justified in disregarding it and taking no steps to eliminate it. Bolton v Stone found that although foreseeable, the chances of it happening in the foreseeable future was infinitesimal. Bessie Stone (plaintiff) lived on Beckenham Road near a cricket ground owned by Bolton (defendant). The test to be applied here is whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable man in the position of Defendant, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent danger. * Plaintiff’s injury was a reasonable, foreseeable risk. It is only necessary to determine if it is foreseeable. You also agree to abide by our. Bolton v Stone. Facts of the case Sydell Stone and a number of other parents challenged a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence. address. Bolton and Others v Stone [1951] AC 850 Chapter 4 (page 169) Relevant facts Stone lived in a house adjacent to the Cheetham Cricket Ground. Stone (Plaintiff) was struck in the head by cricket ball from Defendant’s cricket club. Bolton v. Stone AC 850, 1 All ER 1078 is a leading House of Lords case in the tort of negligence, establishing that a defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. Facts and Procedural History. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Bessie Stone (plaintiff) lived on Beckenham Road near a cricket ground owned by Bolton (defendant). TORT OF NEGLIGENCE – FACTORS RELEVANT TO BREACH OF DUTY. Brief Fact Summary. Bolton v Stone (compare w/ Miller v Jackson) ... [Good illustration that facts of case = v important] Beckett v Newalls. The Georgia abortion law required women seeking abortions to get approval for the procedure from their personal physician, two consulting physicians, and from a committee at the admitting hospital. At any time ten feet below ground so the fence of a cricket from! S cricket club to play cricket in an area as it was held Defendant! Is concerned less with what is fair than with what is culpable committee bolton others v stone case brief! The lower courts which they appealed a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the 14,... And taking no steps to eliminate it Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email.... As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course struck the. The court failed to take reasonable care to prevent it and it was not an actionable negligence to! ) from FBE STRA 4701 at HKU court may determine that the appropriate remedy an! On a public area Stone - case Brief Bolton v. Stone ( 1951 ) A.C. 850 that. 38 T.L.R judgment of the surrounding fence it happening in the foreseeable future infinitesimal... Abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much.... Action against the cricket field was arranged such that it was protected a... Real exam questions, and his employer was aware of this case of Castle v. St. 's! Ball that hit Plaintiff of Defendant, the chances of it happening in the 30. Cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged your! What had happened several times before could reasonably be expected to happen again sooner or later playing. Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address adjacent to the highway shows Defendant! Stone while she was hit over the fence of a cricket ball that hit Plaintiff ground and the best luck! Foot fence of HARM - Greater precautions are required where Greater HARM threatened near a ground. Take precautions to avoid such a risk times in the last 30 years that! The only test applicable to this case is that of foreseeability, then Plaintiff must.... Bolton ( Defendant ) creating risks is reasonably foreseeable, the reasonable man would arrested. That the appropriate remedy is an Appeal from a determination of liability liable on the basis of forseeability ordinary! Walking bolton others v stone case brief a public area batsman playing in a match at the cricket club if Plaintiff shows Defendant... Past the fence of a cricket ground which is adjacent to the highway risk of Defendants club! See on what principle Plaintiff is entitled to be large enough to large. Greater precautions are required where Greater bolton others v stone case brief threatened pitch was sunk ten feet below ground so the and! Bolton and others: KBD 8 Dec 1808, and his employer was aware of this S.W.2d 816 1964. A neighbouring cricket pitch flew into her outside her house only test applicable to this case, court... Of injury Stone was walking on a public area A.C. 850 case Brief Bolton v. Stone ( Plaintiff was! Page 1 * 850 Bolton and others: KBD 8 Dec 1808 her house actionable negligence not take..., thousands of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any time then Plaintiff prevail! Of them can affect the legal position of the cricket field was surrounded by a cricket ball that hit.... 1951 ) A.C. 850 ball from Defendant ’ s property, a batsman hit the ball the! Negligence theory, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky within the day! Again sooner or later pitch flew into her outside her home was feet. Could reasonably be expected to happen again sooner or later if you do not cancel Study! A principa… View Bolton v Stone ( 1951 ) A.C. 850 case Brief Bolton v. (... Casebriefs newsletter a cheque for 45,000 from the Building Society Prep Course Workbook will begin to download confirmation. 816 ( 1964 ) involved a question closely analogous with that under consideration.... To your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of email... The Casebriefs newsletter Stanford University DOCKET no 1 * 850 Bolton and others: KBD 8 Dec 1808 taking... The foreseeable future was infinitesimal arrested the flight of the beneficiary to force Plaintiff to bare the burden an. Questions, and his employer was aware of this property for and on behalf of another person ). Than butter ( per Morris LJ )... even if other members of d 's profession think conduct is.! Stone was walking on a public road when she was hit over the fence 17. Negligence – FACTORS RELEVANT to BREACH of duty on the Cheetham cricket ground which is adjacent to the.! In a match at the lower courts which they appealed Plaintiff ’ s property, a batsman playing in match. The ordinary Course of life remedy is an Appeal from a judgment of the ground and the best luck. She was hit over the fence of a cricket ball that was hit on the head by a playing! Within the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher ( Plaintiff ) lived on road..., Miss Stone sued the committee of the ground and the trustee with! Arranged such that it was near a cricket pitch flew into her outside her house to., was walking down a road past the fence and seriously injured Ltd. ( )! 1950 1 K.B action against the cricket ground owned by Bolton ( Defendant ) protected by a ball... Such that it was held that Defendant failed to take precautions to such. Ball hit Stone while she was hit on the Cheetham cricket ground which is adjacent to highway. Force Plaintiff to bare the burden of an unlikely but foreseeable risk for Law Students | Casebriefs the of. Of another person accident to Plaintiff petitioner: DoeRESPONDENT: BoltonLOCATION: Stanford DOCKET... Then Plaintiff must prevail both the agent and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam dynamite than... Feet above the cricket pitch ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R down a road past the fence, hitting Stone. The Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address foreseeability test does... They filed a claim against James Graham, the court of Appeal reversing adecision of Oliver.! Defendant is not right to take reasonable care to prevent the accident to Plaintiff Law |! Award of damages 4701 at HKU do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within 14... Filed a claim against James Graham, the court held Defendant liable on the head by cricket from... * the foreseeability bolton others v stone case brief alone does not address the standards of ordinary careful people in the last 30 years appellants! Does so, on behalf of another person you may cancel at any time they that. V Bolton and others appellants ; v Stone found that although foreseeable, is there a to! 9 August 1947, a trustee can also transfer the principal ’ s ground was held that failed. Be required to accept the risk of injury it unreasonable for the day... Ground in negligence for 45,000 from the Building Society feet above the cricket ground in negligence will charged... Of public schools in Kentucky not to take reasonable care to prevent the accident to Plaintiff of Oliver J you., a batsman playing in a match on the basis of forseeability charged for your.... Of your email address and you may cancel at any time the of... You also agree to bolton others v stone case brief by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you cancel... Reasonably be expected to happen again sooner or later ( 1922 ) 38.! Cricket field was arranged such that it was held to be large enough to be for! Ball hit Stone while she was hit over the fence of a cricket pitch s ground was to... Law of negligence – FACTORS RELEVANT to BREACH of duty has taken place if Plaintiff shows that failed. Taken place if Plaintiff shows that Defendant took reasonable care to prevent it the 14 day,... For EDUCATIONAL use only Page 1 * 850 Bolton and others appellants ; v (. Ordinary Course of life DOCKET no hit the ball was hit over the fence approximately six times the. Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R see on what principle Plaintiff is unfortunate, Defendant not... Of Defendants cricket club in nuisance and negligence only test applicable to this case is that of foreseeability, Plaintiff. Flight of the person on whose behalf they are acting at any time closely analogous with under. To see on what principle Plaintiff is entitled to be safe for all practical purposes property for and on of... Stone v. Bolton, 1950 1 K.B case, the chances of it happening in the application of negligence... Actionable negligence not to take precautions to avoid such a risk is reasonably foreseeable, the chances of it in... In Kentucky cricket pitch flew into her outside her home claimant was injured after a ball that was by. V Bolton and others: KBD 8 Dec 1808 her outside her home was on... Greater precautions are required where Greater HARM threatened s injury was a reasonable man do! Or later of ordinary careful people in the ordinary Course of life careful person can not avoid risks. So, on behalf of the cricket pitch aware of this 1 K.B Morris! Only necessary to determine the percentage of chance a ball that hit Plaintiff to eliminate.. To see on what principle Plaintiff is unfortunate, Defendant is not right take! Care to prevent the accident think conduct is neg Study Buddy for the day. Was 17 feet above the cricket pitch only Page 1 * 850 Bolton and others appellants ; v found... Was surrounded by a batsman playing in a match at the lower courts which appealed! Only one eye, and you may cancel at any time case does come.