Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
Case Brief: Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Year: 1951
Legal Area: Negligence — Duty of Care and Reasonable Foreseeability
Facts:
The plaintiff, Miss Stone, was standing outside her home near a cricket ground.
A cricket ball was hit out of the ground, flew over a 17-foot-high fence, and struck her, causing injury.
The cricket club had a fence around the ground, and cricket balls were rarely hit outside the boundary.
The plaintiff sued the cricket club for negligence, alleging they had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the risk of injury.
Issue:
Was the cricket club negligent in allowing the cricket ball to fly out and injure the plaintiff?
Specifically, was the risk of such an injury reasonably foreseeable, and did the club take adequate precautions?
Legal Principles:
The case focused on the standard of care in negligence and the principle of reasonable foreseeability of harm.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held in favor of the cricket club.
It was found that the risk of a cricket ball being hit out of the ground and injuring a passerby was so small as to be negligible.
The cricket club had taken reasonable precautions, including the erection of a 17-foot fence.
Since the risk was not reasonably foreseeable, there was no breach of duty.
Therefore, the cricket club was not negligent.
Key Legal Points:
1. Reasonable Foreseeability of Harm:
Negligence requires that the harm be reasonably foreseeable.
If the risk of harm is very small or negligible, and reasonable precautions have been taken, there is no negligence.
2. Standard of Care and Reasonableness:
The defendant is required to take care that is reasonable in the circumstances.
Here, since the cricket club had taken practical measures (like fencing), it met the standard of care.
3. Probability and Gravity of Risk:
The likelihood of harm must be weighed against the burden of taking precautions.
In this case, the risk was so unlikely that imposing a greater burden on the cricket club was unreasonable.
Significance of the Case:
Bolton v Stone established the principle that negligence depends on reasonable foreseeability of harm.
It is not enough that harm could occur; it must be reasonably foreseeable and the defendant must have failed to take reasonable precautions.
The decision highlighted that some risks are so small that a reasonable person would not be expected to guard against them.
Related Case Law:
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): Established the modern concept of duty of care and reasonable foreseeability.
The Wagon Mound (No.1) (1961): Clarified foreseeability of type of harm as essential in negligence.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951): Shows that standard of care may be higher depending on the seriousness of harm.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | Bolton (Defendant) vs Stone (Plaintiff) |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Year | 1951 |
| Legal Issue | Negligence – Was harm reasonably foreseeable? |
| Facts | Cricket ball hit out of ground, injured plaintiff |
| Holding | No negligence — risk too small, reasonable precautions taken |
| Legal Principle | Duty of care requires reasonable foreseeability of harm |
| Significance | Foreseeability and reasonableness crucial in negligence |
Conclusion:
Bolton v Stone remains a foundational case in tort law illustrating that negligence requires not only a duty of care but that the harm must be reasonably foreseeable and that the defendant must have failed to take reasonable precautions. If the risk is very small and the defendant has acted reasonably, they will not be held liable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments