Bolton V Stone
Brief Fact Summary. Stone (Plaintiff) was struck in the head by cricket ball from Defendant’s cricket
club. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. 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.
Facts. Plaintiff lived on a side street next to a cricket ground. She was at the gate in front of the
house when she was struck on the head by a cricket ball. The ball that hit Plaintiff was one of the
longest balls that had ever been hit at the grounds during the last forty years. The cricket ground was
large enough for all practical purposes. The field was surrounded by twelve-foot-high fence.
Witnesses testified that over a thirty-year period about six to ten balls had been hit onto Plaintiff’s
side street. Plaintiff sued the home cricket club and all its members (Defendants). She alleged that
the grounds constituted a public nuisance. She separately alleged common law negligence. The trial
court gave judgment to the Defendants on both the public nuisance and negligence counts. The
Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the negligence claim. Defendant then appealed to the
House of Lords.
Issue. If a risk is reasonably foreseeable, is there a duty to prevent it?
Held. Yes. Judgment for Defendant.
* Plaintiff’s injury was a reasonable, foreseeable risk. Although, only on very rare occasions, perhaps
no more than six times in thirty seasons, cricket balls had been hit onto Plaintiff’s Side Street. What
had happened several times before could reasonably be expected to happen again sooner or later.
* It is irrelevant that no possible precaution would have arrested the flight of the cricket ball that hit
Plaintiff. If cricket cannot be played on a given ground without foreseeable risks, then, it is always
possible to stop using the grounds for cricket. The court failed to see on what principal Plaintiff is
entitled to be required to accept the risk of Defendants cricket club.
Discussion. In this case, the court did not want to force Plaintiff to bear the burden of an unlikely but
foreseeable risk of injury. The court held Defendant liable based on foreseeability.