Bolton v Stone (1951)

Law of Torts · Negligence

Facts.

A woman standing on a quiet road adjoining a cricket ground was struck by a ball hit out of the ground. The ground was surrounded by a seven-foot fence, and the evidence showed that balls had been hit out only about six times in the preceding thirty years.

Issue.

Is a defendant negligent merely because the harm that occurred was foreseeable?

Held.

No. Foreseeability alone is not enough. The court must weigh the magnitude of the risk — its likelihood and its potential seriousness — against the cost of guarding against it. Here the chance of injury was so slight that a reasonable committee would not have taken further precautions.

Why it matters.

It is the case that stops “it was foreseeable” from being an automatic finding of breach, and it is the direct answer to the cricket-ball problems set in 2012, 2018 and 2025.

📄 Full Law of Torts notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Law of Torts topics