Bolton vs. Stone || Case Summary || [1951] AC 850 (UK) || Reasonable Foreseeability
- Vinita Pathak
- May 3
- 1 min read
Updated: May 8
Bolton vs. Stone
FACTS
A cricket ball struck Miss Stone outside her home near a cricket ground. She sued the club for negligence. The club argued that such accidents were extremely rare.
ISSUES
Was the risk of harm foreseeable?
Was the cricket club negligent in failing to prevent such an incident?
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Tort Law: Duty of care and breach.
JUDGEMENT
The House of Lords ruled in favor of the cricket club.
KEY POINTS
The risk was so slight that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions.
A balance must be struck between risk and the burden of taking precautions.
IMPACTS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Affirmed that not all foreseeable harm requires preventative action.
Provided guidance on the standard of care expected in negligence.
CONCLUSION
Bolton v. Stone clarified the limits of liability in negligence by focusing on the probability of harm, helping define what constitutes reasonable care under the law
Vinita Pathak
コメント