Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL)

Facts

The claimant was standing on a public road next to a cricket ground when she was struck by a cricket ball hit out of the ground. The ball had been hit over the fence only a handful of times in many years. The fence was approximately 17 feet high and the pitch was positioned some distance from the boundary.

The claimant argued that the cricket club had been negligent in failing to prevent the ball from leaving the ground.

---

Issue

Was the cricket club in breach of duty for failing to guard against the risk of a ball being hit out of the ground?

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that the club was not negligent. Although harm was foreseeable in a broad sense, the probability of a ball clearing the boundary and injuring someone was extremely low. The risk was so small that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions.

---

Legal Principle

Breach depends partly on the likelihood (probability) of harm. A very small or remote risk may not require preventative action.Courts balance foreseeability against practicality and cost.

---

Importance

• Leading authority on low probability risks in breach analysis.

• Frequently contrasted with Paris v Stepney BC (where seriousness of harm increased the duty).

• Demonstrates that foreseeability alone does not automatically establish breach — the risk must be sufficiently probable.