What legal test does Stone v. Bolton highlight?

It stresses foreseeability: not just a possible event, but a likely risk that a reasonable person would anticipate before liability for negligence arises.

Does every remote risk require action?

No. A remote possibility is not enough. There must be sufficient probability to make the risk foreseeable and call for precautions.

Why did the defendants win?

Because the chance of a ball striking someone on the street was extremely low and a high fence had already been built as a precaution.

What practical lesson does this case teach?

Take reasonable, proportionate precautions. Law does not demand eliminating every tiny risk, only likely and foreseeable ones.

Stone v. Bolton

Stone v. Bolton — Foreseeability in Negligence

Tort — Negligence [1950] 1 K.B. 201 1950 (C.A.), Published: 31 Oct 2025 House of Lords (final) Gulzar Hashmi ~5 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: foreseeability, reasonable man test, negligence SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: remote risk, cricket ground, sports liability

Quick Summary

A woman living beside a cricket ground was struck by a ball while standing at her doorway. Balls rarely cleared the high fence. The court said: a remote possibility is not enough for negligence—there must be a likely risk that a reasonable person would anticipate and guard against.

Citation: Stone v. Bolton, [1950] 1 K.B. 201 (C.A.)

Issues

Could a reasonable person have foreseen the injury to a passerby or neighbour?
If a risk is foreseeable, is there a duty to take precautions?

Rules

It is not enough that the event can be foreseen; the further likelihood of injury must also be something a reasonable person would contemplate.

A remote possibility does not create negligence; there must be sufficient probability to anticipate harm.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline: nearby house, high fence, rare balls over fence, injury event

The plaintiff lived on a street next to a cricket ground.

A high fence left about a 12-foot gap to the top; balls seldom went over.

In roughly 30–40 years, balls cleared the fence only a few times, usually landing in backyards.

One day, the plaintiff was hit on the head at her doorway—an exceptional hit, the longest recorded in decades.

She sued the home club and its members for negligence.

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiff)

Risk to people on the street was foreseeable.
The club should have taken more precautions to prevent balls escaping.

Respondents (Cricket Club)

Incidents were extremely rare; risk was remote.
A substantial fence already protected neighbours.

Judgment

The court found for the defendants. The likelihood of harm was very low, and the club had taken reasonable steps (a high fence). A reasonable person would not have anticipated this rare injury.

Law requires guarding against likely harm, not every remote possibility.

Ratio

Negligence depends on probability of injury, not mere possibility. Where risk is minimal and precautions are reasonable, there is no breach of duty.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the foreseeability threshold in negligence.
Guides clubs, schools, and venues on reasonable precautions.
Useful contrast with cases requiring action where risk is likely.

Key Takeaways

Remote risk ≠ negligence.
Reasonable person test looks at likelihood, not just possibility.
Existing precautions matter when judging breach.
Sports facilities owe care, but not perfection.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RARE BALL, NO BREACH.”

Check risk: rare or likely?
Check precautions: reasonable fence?
Then decide breach: only if likely harm unguarded.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the injury sufficiently foreseeable to create a duty to prevent it?

Rule

Foreseeability requires a likely risk a reasonable person would anticipate—not a remote chance.

Application

Only a handful of incidents in decades; a high fence existed. Probability of street injury was very low.

Conclusion

No breach of duty; defendants not liable.

Glossary

Foreseeability: Whether a reasonable person would predict harm as likely, not just possible.
Reasonable Person Test: An objective standard for judging care and precautions in negligence.
Breach of Duty: Failure to take reasonable precautions against a foreseeable risk of harm.