Facts
The plaintiff, Miss Stone lived adjacent to a cricket ground. Whilst standing outside her house she was struck on the head by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the grounds during a cricket game. She brought an action of nuisance and negligence against the cricket club for not having the necessary precautions laid in place to stop the ball from escaping the cricket ground. The cricket ground itself was sufficiently wide enough to allow for boundary scores and was surrounded by a 7ft fence. A nearby witness stated that there has been as many as five or six balls struck out of the ground in the last 30 years and two members of club reported the hit as being an exceptional compared to anything previously seen on the ground. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages in respect of both the public nuisance and negligence claims. The court of Appeal reversed the count of negligence and the defendant further appealed to the House of Lords.
Legal Issue/Question
What is the extent of the duty the landowners owe to the …show more content…
In simple terms this means that if Miss Stone had indeed stumbled up the ball whilst it was laying on the ground after it had been hit out and was subsequently injured then they could be held liable. They used the cases of Noble v Harrison and Caminer v Nothern and London Investment Ltd . to affirm this point. The defence pointed out how there was nothing in the Mildwood case that demonstrated that a fleeting event can be considered as a nuisance and in the case of Castle v . St. Augustine's Links ltd. which can be closely connected to the case in mention, was determined on distinguishable facts. They argued that the duty of care that they owed to the neighbouring highway could not be extended to them as the risk could not have been reasonably foreseeable due to the rarity of the ball escaping the
The plaintiff, Miss Stone lived adjacent to a cricket ground. Whilst standing outside her house she was struck on the head by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the grounds during a cricket game. She brought an action of nuisance and negligence against the cricket club for not having the necessary precautions laid in place to stop the ball from escaping the cricket ground. The cricket ground itself was sufficiently wide enough to allow for boundary scores and was surrounded by a 7ft fence. A nearby witness stated that there has been as many as five or six balls struck out of the ground in the last 30 years and two members of club reported the hit as being an exceptional compared to anything previously seen on the ground. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages in respect of both the public nuisance and negligence claims. The court of Appeal reversed the count of negligence and the defendant further appealed to the House of Lords.
Legal Issue/Question
What is the extent of the duty the landowners owe to the …show more content…
In simple terms this means that if Miss Stone had indeed stumbled up the ball whilst it was laying on the ground after it had been hit out and was subsequently injured then they could be held liable. They used the cases of Noble v Harrison and Caminer v Nothern and London Investment Ltd . to affirm this point. The defence pointed out how there was nothing in the Mildwood case that demonstrated that a fleeting event can be considered as a nuisance and in the case of Castle v . St. Augustine's Links ltd. which can be closely connected to the case in mention, was determined on distinguishable facts. They argued that the duty of care that they owed to the neighbouring highway could not be extended to them as the risk could not have been reasonably foreseeable due to the rarity of the ball escaping the