bolton v. stone [1951] ac 850, [1951] 1 all er 1078 is a leading house of lords case in the tort of negligence, establishing that a defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. the plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. ==facts== on 9 august 1947, during a game of cricket against the cheetham 2nd xi at cheetham cricket ground in manchester, a batsman from the visiting team hit the ball for six. the ball flew out of the ground, hitting the claimant, miss stone, who was standing outside her house in cheetham hill road, approximately  from the batsman. the club had been playing cricket at the ground since 1864, before the road was built in 1910. the ground was surrounded by a  fence, but the ground sloped up so the fence was  above the level of the pitch where the ball passed, about  from the batsman. there was evidence that a ball had been hit that far out of the ground only very rarely, about six times in the last 30 years, although people living closer to the ground reported that balls were hit out of the ground a few times each season. the claimant argued that the ball being hit so far even once was sufficient to give the club warning that there was a risk of injuring a passer-by, fixing it with liability in negligence for the plaintiff's injuries. the claimant also claimed under the principle in rylands v fletcher, that the ball was a dangerous item that had "escaped" from the cricket ground, and in nuisance. ==judgment== ===high court=== oliver j. heard the case at first instance in the manchester michaelmas assizes on 15 december 1948. he delivered a short judgment on 20 december 1948, dismissing each ground of the claimant's case, holding that there was no evidence of any injury in the previous 38 years, so there was no negligence; rylands v fletcher was not applicable; and a single act of hitting a cricket ball onto a road was too isolated a happening to amount to a nuisance.[1949] 1 all er 237 ===court of appeal=== the claimant's appeal was heard in the court of appeal on 13 october and 14 october 1949, and judgment was delivered by on 2 november 1949. all three judges, somervell, singleton and jenkins ljj, dismissed nuisance on the same grounds as oliver j. somervell lj, dissenting, held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendants had not taken due and reasonable care, so was not negligent either. however, the majority, singleton and jenkins ljj, held that an accident of this sort called f
1951_in_British_law 1951_in_case_law English_tort_case_law House_of_Lords_cases