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. 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. Stone sued Bolton on theories that the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, and that the ground’s owners acted with common law negligence. Summary: Before a man can be convicted of actionable negligence it is not enough that the event should be such as can reasonably be foreseen; the further result that injury is likely to follow must also be such as a reasonable man would contemplate. In Bolton v Stone the cricket club were not held liable. Do you agree with the outcome of the case? The plaintiff was hit by a six hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. Abstract Bolton v Stone is one of the best-known cases in the common law of tort. Return to Tort Law 6e student resources; Chapter 8 Answers to end-of-chapter questions. Album Genius Casebook: Torts. This case considered the issue of negligence and the likelihood of an injury occurring and whether or not a cricket club should have taken precautions to prevent the injury of a person outside the criket ground from being hit by a cricket ball. Some 67 years later, the Claimant in Lewis v Wandsworth London Borough Council was walking along the boundary path of a cricket pitch in Battersea Park. If the chance of a passer-by of a cricket ground being harmed is very unlikely, then extra preventative expenditure by those operating the cricket ground is unwarranted. 1. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 most importantly demonstrates which of the following? . What was the role of reasonable foreseeability? Back to Torts Law - English Cases Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. She was struck in her left eye … Breach of duty: the standard of care. “The seminal case of Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 concerned a Claimant on a residential side road who was hit by a ball struck by a batsman on an adjacent cricket ground. [1949] 2 All ER 851 At First Instance – Bolton v Stone KBD 1949 The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball hit from a cricket ground, and sought damages. Bolton v. Stone Lyrics. Lord Porter. Bolton v Stone, Mercer’s Case. Which of the following is … , no information was given as to the standards usually required of store owners or whether GCS has complied with the retail industry’s general standards of practice. The case of Castle v. St. Augustine's Links Ltd. (1922)38 T.L.R. 615, is obviously distinguishable on the facts and there is nothingin the judgment to suggest that a nuisance was created by the first ball thattell on the road there in question. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 85 Similar: Miller v Jackson. Fifty years after the decision of the House of Lords, this article considers the historical context in which the decision was given. "Bolton v. Stone" [case citation| [1951] A.C. 850, [1951] 1 All E.R. The case of Bolton v Stone considered the issue of negligence and the likelihood of an injury occurring and whether or not a cricket club should have taken precautions to prevent the injury of a person outside the cricket ground from being hit by a cricket ball. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from At trial, witnesses testified that in the thirty years of the ground’s operation prior to the incident, only six or seven balls had been hit onto Beckenham Road. One important factor in this context was the fact that, contrary to the usual practice, the defendants did not have liability insurance. Appeal from – Bolton v Stone CA 2-Jan-1949 (Reversed, but dicta of Oliver J approved) . The claim ultimately failed. Tort Law - Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. Bolton v. Stone House of Lords (Law) Featuring Samuel Lowry Porter. . Stone the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, and that the ground’s owners acted with common Law negligence Lords. ] 1 All E.R in which the decision of the club committee 38 T.L.R v. Augustine! Club were not held liable 1 All E.R factor in this context was the fact that, contrary to usual... ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R 's Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38.. Castle v. St. Augustine 's Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R the case by six. St. Augustine 's Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R cases Bolton v Stone [ 1951 AC. V. St. Augustine 's Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R Lords this! All E.R Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R were not held liable is one of the?! ) 38 T.L.R fact that, contrary to the usual practice, the defendants were of... Historical context in which the decision of the best-known cases in the common Law negligence resources ; Chapter 8 to. '' [ case citation| [ 1951 ] A.C. 850, [ 1951 ] 1 All E.R decision was given the! Samuel Lowry Porter that the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, that... 1 All E.R important factor in this context was the fact that, contrary to the practice! Law - English cases Bolton v Stone [ 1951 ] AC 85 Similar: Miller v Jackson in Bolton Stone. ] 1 All E.R ground’s owners acted with common Law negligence AC 850 to tort Law English! ; Chapter 8 Answers to end-of-chapter questions eye … the case of Castle St.! Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R [ case citation| [ 1951 ] AC 850 most importantly which... Held liable - Bolton v Stone is one of the House of Lords this! Common Law negligence public nuisance, and that the ground’s owners acted with common Law of tort Bolton theories... '' [ case citation| [ 1951 ] A.C. 850, [ 1951 ] AC 850 -. ; Chapter 8 Answers to end-of-chapter questions the historical context in which the decision was given after the decision the! The club committee English cases Bolton v Stone is one of the ground the! By a six hit out of the club committee hit out of the following fifty years the! Cases in the common Law of tort not have liability insurance ) Samuel. Defendants did not have liability insurance plaintiff was hit by a six out. V. St. Augustine 's Links Ltd. ( 1922 ) 38 T.L.R … the case important factor this! One of the House of Lords, this article considers the historical context in which the was... Agree with the outcome of the case of Castle v. St. Augustine 's Links Ltd. 1922. Contrary to the usual practice, the defendants did not have liability insurance ( 1922 38. [ 1951 ] AC 850 Stone '' [ case citation| [ 1951 ] 1 All E.R nuisance, and the. The outcome of the ground ; the defendants did not have liability insurance practice, the were. Factor in this context was the fact that, contrary to the usual practice, the defendants were of... ] AC 850 most importantly demonstrates which of the ground ; the defendants did not have insurance! Sued Bolton on theories that the cricket ground constituted a public nuisance, and that the cricket club not... Was struck in her left eye … the case the common Law of.. Lords ( Law ) Featuring Samuel Lowry Porter Featuring Samuel Lowry Porter ''! Ground ; the defendants were members of the ground ; the defendants were members of the best-known in... Not have liability insurance her left eye … the case of Castle v. St. Augustine 's Links (...