Miller v Jackson

Question 1

Facts

Answer 1

The Millers had cricket balls from the defendant land in their backyard and cause damage to their property.
The Millers seek remediation (money & injunction) in the course of action of negligence.
Differs from Bolton v Stone

Question 2

Issue

Answer 2

Does the cricket club owe a duty of care? is the actions being argued possible and probable ?

Question 3

Decision

Answer 3

The cricket club does owe a duty of care - Millers won damages but no injunction

Question 4

Reasoning

Answer 4

It is a foreseeable and foreseen risk, it is the duty of the cricket club to conduct themselves in a way that will not cause risk.

Question 5

Rule of law

Answer 5

Is the risk probable and probable