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

P purchased a home right next to a cricket field that had been in business for over 70 years. After the homes were built and purchased, in the first three years from 1972-1974, quite a number of balls came over or under the boundary fence and went into the gardens of the houses. When the players went around to get them, one of the Ps was very annoyed by this as she claimed the players were very rude, arrogant and deceitful and that to get away from these problems they vacated their home when games were played. Ds made efforts to stop balls from going on Ps’ property by installing a chain link fence that was 15 feet higher above the current concrete fence. These fixes, along with the fact that they changed the nature of their play, resulted in significantly few balls going into the adjacent properties. Balls over the fence were now just 6-9 balls per year. No one was hurt, and there were damages, but D offered to pay them all and even offered to supply a safety net over the garden whenever games were played as well as replace windows with unbreakable glass. Every offer of D was rejected. The suit that was filed and was plead under negligence or in the alternative a nuisance. The trial court granted the injunction requested. This was the appeal from that judgment.

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.