Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL)

Facts

• Miss Stone, the plaintiff, was struck by a cricket ball while standing on a public road outside her home.
• The ball was hit out of the defendant cricket club’s ground, a very rare occurrence—estimated to have happened only six times in thirty years.
• The cricket ground was surrounded by a seven-foot fence at the point where the ball cleared it.
• The specific hit was considered exceptional, as the ball traveled an unusually long distance to reach the road.
• Miss Stone argued the cricket club was negligent for failing to prevent balls from escaping and causing injury.

Issues

1. Was the harm to Miss Stone reasonably foreseeable given the rarity of cricket balls leaving the ground?
2. Did the defendant cricket club take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm?
3. Should the defendant have implemented further preventative measures despite the low probability of harm?
4. Did the potential gravity of injury require the cricket club to take more extensive precautions?

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the defendant cricket club was not negligent.
• The rarity of cricket balls leaving the ground indicated an extremely low probability of harm.
• The club had erected a seven-foot fence, demonstrating reasonable precaution in the circumstances.
• The additional proposed measures, such as raising the fence or ceasing play, were deemed impractical or overly burdensome given the likelihood of harm.
• The duty of care in negligence does not require eliminating all conceivable risks, especially when probability is minimal and cost is substantial.

Legal Principles

• Liability in negligence involves balancing the likelihood and gravity of harm against the cost and practicality of precautions.
• The foreseeability of harm requires more than conceivable possibility; it must be a reasonably likely event.
• The gravity of potential injury is weighed alongside the probability of its occurrence.
• Reasonable care does not require absolute safety when the risk is exceptionally low and prevention costs are onerous.
• Subsequent cases such as Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 and The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 have refined and applied these principles.

Conclusion

Bolton v Stone established that, in assessing negligence, courts must balance the likelihood and potential seriousness of harm with the burden and practicality of taking further preventative measures. The decision clarified that reasonable care does not equate to eliminating all risks, particularly where the chance of harm is remote and further precautions would incur disproportionate costs.