Facts

The incident took place near a cricket ground owned by a cricket club in Manchester, England. A woman named Miss Stone was standing on the pavement outside her house when she was struck by a cricket ball hit out of the ground. The cricket ground had been in use for over 90 years, and it was surrounded by a 7-foot high fence on top of a 17-foot high embankment—effectively making it 24 feet high from the pitch. The cricket ball was hit by a batsman with considerable force, and it traveled approximately 100 yards before hitting Miss Stone. Evidence showed that such balls had only been hit out of the ground very rarely—about 6 times in 30 years. Miss Stone sued the cricket club for negligence, claiming they failed in their duty of care by allowing the ball to be hit out and cause injury.

Issues:

i. Was the cricket club negligent in failing to prevent the cricket ball from leaving the ground and hitting a passer-by?

ii. Did the club owe a duty of care to people outside the ground, and if so, did they breach that duty?

iii. Was the risk of harm so foreseeable and probable that reasonable precautions should have been taken?

Analysis:

• The House of Lords focused on the principle that negligence depends on whether a defendant has taken the precautions that a reasonable person would take in the circumstances.

• A central factor was the degree of foreseeability—whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of injury to someone like Miss Stone.

• It was acknowledged that while some risk existed, the likelihood of a cricket ball being hit out of the ground and striking someone was extremely small.

• Statistical evidence showed that in over 30 years, only about six balls had ever been hit over the fence—making the occurrence very infrequent.

• The cricket club had already taken substantial precautionary measures, including a 7-foot fence on top of a 17-foot embankment, which together constituted a 24-foot barrier—a reasonable measure by any standard.

• The Lords emphasized that negligence law does not demand protection against all conceivable risks, only those that are reasonably probable.

• They considered that imposing liability in such a case would result in an unrealistic standard of care that would hinder legitimate activities like sports.

• The standard for reasonable care was seen as a balance between social utility and risk, and in this case, the social value of playing cricket was weighed against a very minimal risk to public safety.

• Even though physical harm occurred, the law does not impose liability purely on the basis of the result; it must be linked to a foreseeable and avoidable risk, which was not present here.

• The court accepted that perfect safety is unattainable, and that society must tolerate a degree of risk for common activities, especially when precautions are already in place.

Judgement

The House of Lords delivered judgment in favour of the defendants, holding that the cricket club was not negligent. The court concluded that although the injury to Miss Stone was unfortunate, the risk of such an event occurring was so minimal that a reasonable person in the position of the defendants would not have anticipated the need for further precautions. It was emphasized that the cricket club had already taken reasonable steps by erecting a high boundary fence and that the ball being hit out of the ground was an extremely rare occurrence. The Lords reasoned that negligence requires not just the possibility of harm, but the foreseeability of a real and substantial risk. Since the probability of harm was exceedingly low and the club had acted with reasonable care, there was no breach of duty. As a result, the defendants were not held liable for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

Conclusion:

The case established an important principle in the law of negligence—that not every potential risk gives rise to a duty of care. The case clarified that liability arises only when the risk is not merely possible, but foreseeable and likely enough that a reasonable person would take steps to guard against it. Since the cricket club had taken appropriate precautions and the event was extremely rare, the court found that no further duty was owed to the claimant. This judgment underscores the balance the law must maintain between protecting individuals from harm and not unduly burdening socially valuable activities with excessive legal obligations.