Legal Communication – Nicola Sarjeant
Tort Law
Negligence
Essentially, to have a cause of action (a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue), you need
to show:
1. The defendant was negligent. (Duty of care + breach of duty + proximate cause)
2. The defendant’s negligence was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the plaintiff.
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078
Facts: On 9 August 1947, during a game of cricket, a batsman from the visiting team hit the ball out of the
ground. The ball flew out of the ground, hitting the claimant, Miss Stone, who was standing outside her house,
approximately 100 yards (91 m) from the batsman. Stone sued Bolton, the owner of the cricket ground, for
public nuisance and common law negligence on the basis that the field did not have a fence high enough to
prevent balls from flying out of the ground. Bolton claimed that only about 6 balls had been hit that far out of
the ground in the previous 30 years.
This case went to the House of Lords. What do you think they decided?
The House of Lords (England’s highest court) unanimously ruled in favour of the defendant
(Bolton, who owned the cricket ground). Therefore, Bolton did not have to pay damages to Miss
Stone.
The Court found that the danger was not sufficiently foreseeable (the risk was too remote).
- The risk was foreseeable, but so highly improbable that a reasonable person would not take
action to avoid it.
- There were also policy implications in terms of what imposing liability on Bolton would have
meant – it would have created restrictions on what we can do in everyday life in an urban, modern
society.
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966
Facts: Cricket had been played on a village cricket ground since 1905. In 1972 the plaintiff bought a new
house, the back garden of which was only 102 feet (30 m) from the centre of the ground. Over the years
cricket balls would regularly land in the plaintiff’s garden, occasionally damaging property. The cricket club
raised the fence level and offered to take other measures to stop any damage occurring, as well as to meet
the cost of any property damage (£400). The Millers were not content and sued for damages and an
injunction to prevent cricket being played on the ground.
The Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 in favour of the plaintiffs, Mr & Mrs Miller. Lord Denning dissented.
The Court found that there was a foreseeable risk of injury and the defendants (Jackson) couldn’t
prevent accidents from happening.
However, damages were a sufficient remedy – an injunction was not necessary  need to strike a
fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to the quiet enjoyment of their home and garden and
the right of the villagers to play cricket (who had been playing there for 70 years). The Millers had
bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that
the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.
 What if it’s partly the plaintiffs’ fault? For example, a person carelessly crosses the road and is hit by a
driver who is also driving carelessly. Should the person who was hit by the car be able to sue? Why/why
not? If yes, what kind of damages would be awarded?
Contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff (injured party) – the amount of damages the
plaintiff can receive is reduced by the extent to which he/she was at fault. [Note: in the USA, this
is referred to as ‘comparative negligence’.]
Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) 1 WLR 623, having paid to use a public toilet, a 36-year-old woman found
herself trapped inside a cubicle which had no door handle. She attempted to climb out by stepping first onto
the toilet and then onto the toilet-roll holder, which broke. She was injured.
The Court found that the defendants (Harlow District Council) were liable, as the injuries were a
probably and natural cause of their negligence. However, damages were reduced by 25%, since
the plaintiff (Ms Sayers) was careless by depending on the toilet roll holder for support.