## Facts

- A cricket club had played on its ground since the mid-19th century; a public road was later laid adjacent to the ground.
- A boundary fence was about 12 feet high, and because the land rose inside the ground, the fence top stood about 17 feet above pitch level at the point where balls might clear it.
- During a match, a batsman hit a ball over the fence and onto the road, striking Miss Stone on the head outside her house.
- Evidence showed balls very rarely cleared the fence and reached the road (about six times over several decades), and there had been no prior personal injuries on the road.
- Miss Stone sued committee members of the club alleging negligence and, alternatively, nuisance and liability based on “escape” (by analogy to strict liability for escaped dangerous things).

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants breached a duty of care by failing to take additional precautions against a cricket ball escaping the ground and injuring road users, given the low frequency of such events.
2. Whether an occasional escape of a cricket ball onto a public road constitutes actionable private nuisance.
3. Whether strict liability for an escaped dangerous thing applied to the escape of a cricket ball from a cricket ground.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the defendants’ appeal and restored the trial judgment dismissing the action.
- The defendants were not negligent because, although escape was foreseeable in a broad sense, the probability of injury was so slight that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions.
- The nuisance claim failed because the incident was too isolated and did not amount to a substantial or continuing interference.
- Strict liability for escape of a dangerous thing did not apply on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to prove breach; the risk must be of sufficient probability that a reasonable person would take precautions.
- A defendant is not required to guard against risks that are remote or treated as negligible in ordinary life.
- In assessing breach, courts may consider the likelihood of harm, the burden and practicality of additional precautions, and the character and utility of the activity.
- An isolated or very occasional interference is generally insufficient for private nuisance absent a continuing or substantial pattern.
- Strict liability for escape does not extend to ordinary sporting activities where the “escape” is occasional and negligence is not established.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that the cricket club committee members were not liable because the chance of a ball escaping and injuring a passerby was extremely small, making additional precautions unnecessary under the reasonable-care standard; the same facts also defeated nuisance and strict-liability theories.


Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850 (H.L.)