Bolton and Others v Stone
[1951] AC 850(Judgment by: Lord Oaksey)
Bolton and Others
vStone
Judges:
Lord Porter
Lord Normand
Lord OakseyLord Reid
Lord Radcliffe
Judgment date: 10 May 1951
Judgment by:
Lord Oaksey
My Lords, I have come to the conclusion in this difficult case that Oliver, J.'s decision ought to be restored.
Cricket has been played for about ninety years on the ground in question and no ball has been proved to have struck anyone on the highways near the ground until the respondent was struck, nor has there been any complaint to the appellants. In such circumstances was it the duty of the appellants, who are the committee of the club, to take some special precautions other than those they did take to prevent such an accident as happened? The standard of care in the law of negligence is the standard of an ordinarily careful man, but in my opinion an ordinarily careful man does not take precautions against every foreseeable risk. He can, of course, foresee the possibility of many risks, but life would be almost impossible if he were to attempt to take precautions against every risk which he can foresee. He takes precautions against risks which are reasonably likely to happen. Many foreseeable risks are extremely unlikely to happen and cannot be guarded against except by almost complete isolation. The ordinarily prudent owner of a dog does not keep his dog always on a lead on a country highway for fear it may cause injury to a passing motor cyclist, nor does the ordinarily prudent pedestrian avoid the use of the highway for fear of skidding motor cars. It may very well be that after this accident the ordinarily prudent committee man of a similar cricket ground would take some further precaution, but that is not to say that he would have taken a similar precaution before the accident. The case of Castle v. St. Augustine's Links Ld. [ [54] ] is obviously distinguishable on the facts and there is nothing in the judgment to suggest that a nuisance was created by the first ball that fell on the road there in question.
There are many footpaths and highways adjacent to cricket grounds and golf courses on to which cricket and golf balls are occasionally driven, but such risks are habitually treated both by the owners and committees of such cricket and golf courses and by the pedestrians who use the adjacent footpaths and highways as negligible and it is not, in my opinion, actionable negligence not to take precautions to avoid such risks.