During a cricket match a batsman hit a ball which struck and injured Stone (P) who was standing on a highway adjoining the ground. The ball was hit out of the ground at a point at which there was a protective fence rising to seventeen feet above the cricket pitch. The distance from the striker to the fence was some seventy-eight yards and that to the place where the respondent was hit about one hundred yards. The ground had been occupied and used as a cricket ground for about ninety years, and there was evidence that on some six occasions in a period of over thirty years a ball had been hit into the highway, but no one had been injured. P claimed damages for negligence from the appellants, as occupiers of the ground. P claimed that a fence was not high enough to keep the balls from flying out of the field. D claimed that only 6-10 balls had flown out in the last 30 years, so it was an unforeseeable risk. The trial court ruled for D; P appealed. Appeals court reversed in favor of P stating that it was a foreseeable risk. This was the appeal to the House of Lords.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.