Bolton v Stone

Question 1

Fact

Answer 1

In 1951, Cricket club being suited as their cricket batter, hit a person outside their home with a cricket ball.

Question 2

Issue

Answer 2

Is it enough that an injury might possibly occur, or must some greater probability exist?

Question 3

Decision

Answer 3

The idea that there was foreseeable risk from the cricket club is not enough to prove them negligent in not preventing it.

Question 4

Reasonings

Answer 4

Remote possibility wasn’t enough, injury occurring docent automatically account to negligence.
Conceivable risk is a part of every-day life, however, if that made it negligent, society would just stop living.

Question 5

Rule of law

Answer 5

Remote possibility is not enough to prove negligence - society is inherently dangerous, but to confine humans to assess every remote risk is laughable