The case of Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 is a landmark decision in the law of negligence. It clarified the principles governing the duty of care, foreseeability of harm, and the standard of a reasonable person in determining breach of duty. The ruling established that a defendant is not negligent if the risk of harm was so remote that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions. This decision remains a significant authority in tort law, especially in cases concerning the scope of liability for unlikely or rare risks.
Facts of Bolton v Stone
On 9 August 1947, Miss Stone, the claimant, was standing outside her home on Cheetham Hill Road, Manchester, when she was struck by a cricket ball that had been hit out of the Cheetham Cricket Ground. The ball traveled approximately 100 yards (91 meters) from the batsman before hitting her. The defendants were members of the Cheetham Cricket Club committee, responsible for maintaining the cricket ground.
The cricket ground had been used for matches since 1864, well before the nearby road was constructed in 1910. To minimise the escape of balls, the ground was enclosed by a 12-foot (3.7 meters) fence, which effectively stood 17 feet (5.2 meters) above the pitch at the point where the ball cleared the boundary. However, due to the natural slope of the ground, the fence’s effectiveness varied.
There was evidence that balls had been hit out of the ground before, but such occurrences were extremely rare. The cricket club’s records showed that a ball had cleared the fence only six times in the previous 30 years. Nevertheless, local residents, particularly those living closer to the ground, suggested that balls were hit out of the ground a few times per season.
Miss Stone argued that the fact that a ball had previously escaped should have put the club on notice that such an event was foreseeable, making them liable for negligence. She also brought alternative claims based on Rylands v Fletcher (arguing that the ball was a dangerous item that had escaped) and nuisance law.
Legal Issues
The central legal issue in Bolton v Stone was whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the tort of negligence. The case required the House of Lords to consider:
- Foreseeability of harm – Was the risk of harm foreseeable to a reasonable person?
- Standard of care – Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position have taken additional precautions?
- Practicality and social utility – Did the cricket club’s social benefit outweigh the necessity of further precautions?
- Remoteness of risk – Was the probability of harm sufficiently low to absolve the defendants of liability?
Bolton v Stone Judgement and Legal Reasoning
The House of Lords in Bolton v Stone unanimously held that the cricket club was not liable for negligence. The decision was based on several key findings:
Foreseeability and Probability of Harm
A critical aspect of negligence law is whether the harm suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions. The Lords agreed that while it was possible for a ball to escape and strike a passerby, such an event was so rare that a reasonable person would not have taken additional precautions.
Lord Normand emphasised that:
“It is not the law that precautions must be taken against every peril that can be foreseen by the timorous.”
This statement reinforced that mere foreseeability does not impose liability. Instead, foreseeability must be balanced with the likelihood of harm occurring. In this case, the fact that only six balls had escaped in 30 years demonstrated that the probability of harm was extremely low.
The Standard of a Reasonable Person
To establish negligence, the claimant had to prove that the defendants failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position. The Lords assessed what additional steps the club could have reasonably been expected to take. The cricket ground had been used for nearly a century without incident, and the existing 17-foot fence was deemed a sufficient safety measure.
The Lords concluded that the cost and effort of building a significantly higher fence would have been impractical, particularly given the low probability of an accident. They reasoned that a reasonable person would not have taken further action under these circumstances.
Social Utility and Public Policy Considerations
Another important factor was the social value of cricket as a recreational activity. The Lords expressed concern that imposing liability could lead to excessive restrictions on everyday activities in urban life.
Lord Porter acknowledged that hitting the ball out of the ground was an inherent part of cricket, stating:
“Hitting a ball out of the ground is an objective of the game, and indeed, one which the batsman would wish to bring about.”
The Lords feared that holding the club liable could create a precedent where sports and other recreational activities would face unreasonable constraints.
Alternative Claims – Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Nuisance Claim: The Lords rejected the claim that the escape of the ball amounted to a private nuisance. Given that cricket had been played on the ground since 1864, long before the nearby road was built, they found no grounds for nuisance liability.
- Rylands v Fletcher Claim: The Lords dismissed the argument that the cricket ball was a dangerous item escaping under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Unlike industrial waste or hazardous materials, a cricket ball is not an abnormally dangerous object, and its occasional escape did not constitute an unnatural use of land.
Conclusion
Bolton v Stone established a measured approach to negligence, ensuring that only foreseeable and probable risks lead to liability. The decision reinforced that courts must balance risk, practicality, and social utility in determining duty of care. By setting a high threshold for foreseeability, the case remains a key precedent in negligence law, helping courts distinguish between genuinely negligent behavior and mere unfortunate accidents.